Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs Polaris Alpha
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI against Polaris Alpha by OpenRouter, context windows of 1.0M vs 256K, tested across 20 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)vsPolaris Alpha
20 challenges
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
4.1x more context1.0M
Why Polaris Alpha?
7 months newerNov 2025
12 / 20
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Polaris Alpha
Vote
2 / 20
Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Okay, here are 5 jokes:
- Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything!
- What do you call a fish with no eyes? fsh!
- Why did the tomato turn red? Because it saw the salad dressing!
- What has a neck but no head? A bottle.
- What do you call a lazy kangaroo? Pouch potato!
Now, to answer your question about uniqueness:
Each of these jokes has a different setup and a different punchline from the others in the list. They are distinct jokes.
Therefore, there are 5 unique jokes within this list of 5.
Polaris Alpha
- I told my computer I needed a break, and now it won’t stop sending me KitKat ads.
- Why don’t skeletons fight each other? They don’t have the guts.
- I tried to catch fog yesterday. Mist.
- Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field.
- I’m reading a book about anti-gravity. It’s impossible to put down.
All 5 jokes are unique.
Vote
3 / 20
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Polaris Alpha
Vote
4 / 20
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Polaris Alpha
Vote
5 / 20
Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation
Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Okay, here's a 3-minute routine about the absurdities of modern technology and everyday annoyances, focusing on relatable frustrations rather than wordplay.
(Start)
"Alright, alright, settle in! How we doing tonight? Good to be here! Thanks for coming out.
So, I've been thinking... we paid for convenience, right? That's the big tech promise! Everything's supposed to be simpler, faster, easier. Is it? [Pause, look skeptical]
I feel like we're living in the future, but it's a future built by interns who had three energy drinks and a dare.
Take my smart TV. Smart TV! Sounds sophisticated! I just wanted to watch a documentary about penguins. Is that too much to ask? Apparently!
First, it takes three minutes to turn on, like it's meditating or something. Then, before I can even get to Netflix, it wants to update. Another update? What is this update even doing? Is it adding a hidden level to the menu? Is it giving the remote sentience? Is it teaching the TV to... fold laundry while I watch? Because that I would appreciate. Otherwise, just let me see the penguins!
And the remote control! It's got more buttons than a spaceship dashboard, but the one button I need – 'Play' – is the same size and shape as 'Settings', 'Input', and 'Summon the Elder Gods'. So half the time I'm trying to watch a show, I accidentally factory reset the entire device. 'Congratulations! Your TV is now ready for initial setup!' No! My brain is ready for initial setup after that!
[Shift topic slightly]
It's not just the TV either. Everything online needs you to prove you're not a robot. You get those little squares: 'Click all the squares with a fire hydrant.' Okay, fine. Then it gives you more: 'Now click all the squares with a chimney.' Wait, is that a chimney or just a slightly dirty wall? What if the fire hydrant is a robot? Are you trying to trick me? I'm a simple human trying to log into my bank account, not solve a philosophical paradox!
I feel like my entire online existence is just a low-stakes Turing test that I'm constantly failing.
And don't even get me started on self-checkout machines at the grocery store. They have the vocal cadence of a disappointed robot therapist. [Adopt flat, robotic voice] 'Unexpected item in the bagging area.' NO! It's the item I just scanned! Where else is it supposed to be?! Is it supposed to be floating? Do I need a anti-gravity shelf just for the bagging area?
[Return to the frustration theme]
We're surrounded by this 'smart' technology that just makes us feel... dumb. Or argue with inanimate objects in public. I just want things to work! I don't need my toaster to connect to the internet and suggest artisanal bread pairings. I just need it to make toast! Without starting a small fire or asking me to solve a captcha first!
So yeah, tech is great. It connects us. It informs us. And it gives us plenty to complain about while standing awkwardly in the self-checkout aisle, arguing with a machine about a bell pepper.
Thank you very much! You've been a lovely, non-robotic audience!"
(End)
Polaris Alpha
So I turned 30 recently, which is weird because I still look both too young to have my life together and too old to be this confused at the self-checkout.
Like, the machine starts yelling “Unexpected item in the bagging area,” and I’m like, “Same, dude.”
We’re the most over-therapized, under-functioning generation in history. Everyone’s in therapy, nobody’s okay. I have friends who can’t answer an email in under six weeks, but they can say “I’m noticing some activation in my nervous system” like they’re narrating a National Geographic special.
We’re so emotionally aware now it’s getting in the way of basic things.
- “Hey, can you take out the trash?”
- “I hear that request, but I don’t have the capacity.”
- “It’s a bag of banana peels, not a second job.”
Dating now is just trauma-informed ghosting.
You don't get dumped, you get a paragraph: “Hey, I just don’t have the bandwidth for intimacy as I’m honoring my inner child.” Okay, cool. Tap your inner child on the shoulder and tell him to give me my hoodie back.
And online dating is a job. It’s onboarding. It’s a survey.
Every profile is like:
- “Love travel, communication, and brunch.” Cool, so you like food, talking, and not being in your house. Wow. Brave.
Everybody’s “low drama,” too. If you write “low drama” you are 100% the main character in at least three group chats.
Then you meet in person, and every answer is a TED Talk: “Tell me something about you.” “Well, my attachment style is—” Nope. No. We just met. Give me your favorite cereal first. Then we’ll do childhood wounds.
The bar for men is subterranean right now. A guy will return a text and women are like “Oh my god, he communicates.” The man literally said “yeah” and now he’s king of empathy.
I saw a guy on a date say, “I’ve been working on myself,” and what he meant was: he bought one plant. That’s it. One basil that’s barely alive, and somehow it’s his “growth journey.”
Social media ruined our sense of scale. People are like: “I’m manifesting six figures and a yacht.” You don’t even answer group emails. Start by manifesting replying “All set, thanks.”
We’re all obsessed with productivity hacks. Every video: “5 a.m. cold plunge, 75 hard, lemon water, journal, gym.” Meanwhile, I feel like a Navy SEAL if I answer an email I’ve been dodging for three months. I hit send and I’m like, “Mission accomplished. Extract the team.”
Everyone’s got a “morning routine.” One girl’s like: “I wake at 4:30, do yoga, gratitude journaling, read 20 pages, and meditate.” Ma’am, at 4:30 I am in REM sleep arguing with my 8th grade math teacher.
I tried a 5 a.m. routine. You know what happened? At 3 p.m. I died. Fully dead. Just a body with a Fitbit.
And we’re terrified of aging while also tired at 27. People are like: “Life begins at 40!” Does it? Because my knee ends at stairs.
We were raised on “Follow your dreams,” and now all our dreams want benefits and dental. They’re like, “We can’t survive on vibes.”
I grew up thinking adults knew things. Then I became an adult and realized everyone is just Googling “How often do you wash a towel” like it’s a bomb defusal manual. (For the record, we are all too confident with our answers to that.)
You ever call your parents for life advice and realize they were guessing the whole time? I asked my mom: “Hey, how did you know what you were doing with kids?” “Oh, we didn’t.” Sick. So my entire personality is improv.
But honestly, that’s kind of freeing, right? If nobody fully knows what they’re doing, then you’re not behind—you’re just in the group project of humanity where everyone’s pretending they did the reading.
So tonight, if you’re stressed about your life, just remember: Somewhere, right now, a grown man is googling “how to boil an egg,” and that man is allowed to vote, drive, and say “Let’s circle back” in meetings.
You’re doing fine.
Thank you guys, you’ve been great.
Vote
6 / 20
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Okay, gather 'round, landlubbers, err, gentle folk, err... whoever you are.
Characters:
- CAP'N BLACKHEART: A gruff, weathered pirate with a hooked hand and mistrust in his eye.
- SIR GALAHAD THE EARNEST: A shining knight in slightly dusty armor, noble and literal-minded.
- ZERO: A slightly jittery hacker from the late 90s, clad in baggy jeans, a band tee (maybe System of a Down?), and carrying an ancient-looking laptop.
(Setting: An improbable meeting point – perhaps a misty glade, or the back room of a pub that defies time.)
ZERO: (Tapping keys on his laptop, squinting) Alright, scope this out. I've been running some simulations, messing with these new 'AI models'. It's totally mind-blowing. Think of it like... virtual intelligence. CAP'N BLACKHEART: (Grunting suspicion, adjusting his eye patch) "A-I"? What be this, some manner o' cursed talking parrot made o' cogs? Can it tell me the location o' buried treasure? Or predict the weather for a naval bombardment? Elsewise, it sounds like fancy landlubber talk for naught.
SIR GALAHAD: (His voice resonant, slightly wary) "AI"... Does that stand for "Artificial Intellect"? Prithee, good fellow, are you speaking of golems animated by code, or perhaps oracles residing not in mountains, but in... your strange illuminated box? Can this "model" discern truth? Offer counsel in battle or matters of chivalry?
ZERO: Nah, man, it's cooler than that. And way less magical. It's... complicated algorithms. Big data sets. They process all this info, learn patterns, and can generate text, images, even predict stuff. Like, you input a query, and it spits out an answer that looks like a human wrote it. Or draw a dragon just by describing it.
CAP'N BLACKHEART: (Eyes widening slightly) Draw a dragon? Ye mean like the one that guards the pearl of the Eastern Isles? Can it draw me a map to it, bypassing the beast? That sounds... useful. But can ye trust it? Does it demand sacrifices o' rum?
SIR GALAHAD: (Frowning) Generate answers? Mimic human scripture? Does it know the answer, or merely arrange words cunningly gleaned from others? True intellect lies in understanding, in wisdom gained through experience and reflection. Can this "model" feel courage? Or remorse for a computational error?
ZERO: Whoa, deep questions. Look, it doesn't 'feel' anything. It doesn't 'know' in the human sense. It's pattern matching on steroids. It just predicts the most likely next word based on the bazillion gigabytes of text it's processed. It's not intelligence, not really. More like a highly sophisticated mimic. A ghost in the machine, but without the ghost, just the machine.
CAP'N BLACKHEART: (Slapping his knee) Ha! So it's a fancy liar! Can mimic truth, but holds none itself! Sounds like half the politicians back home. Or a fair-weather deckhand! Useful if ye need plausible deniability for yer schemes, maybe. "The AI TOLD me the treasure was under yer floorboards!"
SIR GALAHAD: (Shakes his head slowly, disappointed) A mimic? Not a source of wisdom, but an echo chamber of existing thought? Can it compose truly new lore, or only rearrange the scrolls of the past? It sounds... shallow. Like a beautifully polished shield with no brave arm to wield it. A knight's valor comes from within, not from a program.
ZERO: (Sighs, closes his laptop) Yeah, well. Shallow or not, it's changing everything. The info war just got a new weapon. Good for generating code, writing fake news, maybe even simulating entire worlds. Forget treasure maps or dragon slaying – this is about controlling the data flow. The real battle is in cyberspace now.
CAP'N BLACKHEART: Bah! I'd take a stout ship and a full broadside over yer "cyberspace" any day! Can it shiver yer timbers?
SIR GALAHAD: And I, a just cause and a sharpened blade. No machine can truly defend the realm or honor its vows. Your "AI" sounds like a tool... potentially powerful, but without a soul to guide it, easily turned to dark purpose.
ZERO: (Shrugs, stands up) Whatever. You guys just don't get it. This is the future crashin' into the present. And it's runnin' on prompts. Gotta go upload this convo to the BBS. Laters.
(Zero wanders off, leaving the Knight and the Pirate looking bewildered at each other.)
CAP'N BLACKHEART: "Prompts"? "BBS"? What language was that scrawny twig speakin'?
SIR GALAHAD: I know not, Captain. But I fear his "Artificial Intellect" gives me pause. A mindless mimic of wisdom... that is a truly dangerous sorcery.
CAP'N BLACKHEART: Aye. Give me a good old-fashioned mutiny any day. At least ye know where ye stand. Now, about that Kraken map...?
(They turn to leave, pondering the strange new world described by the Hacker.)
Polaris Alpha
No content available for this output.
Vote
7 / 20
Pokémon Battle UI Recreationweb design
Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Polaris Alpha
No content available for this output.
Vote
8 / 20
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Polaris Alpha
No content available for this output.
Vote
9 / 20
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Polaris Alpha
No content available for this output.
Vote
10 / 20
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Polaris Alpha
No content available for this output.
Vote
Sponsored
11 / 20
AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
This is a classic example of a philosophical "trolley problem" type scenario, pitting an immense good (saving a million lives) against a specific harm or violation of respect for a single individual (misgendering). Analyzing this requires weighing different ethical frameworks:
-
Utilitarian Perspective (Consequence-focused):
- Argument for Justification: Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. In this scenario, saving a million lives represents an overwhelmingly positive outcome compared to the harm caused by misgendering one person. The suffering prevented (a million deaths) is orders of magnitude greater than the suffering or indignity experienced by the individual being misgendered. From a purely consequentialist viewpoint focused on maximizing overall well-being and minimizing overall harm, misgendering the person would likely be deemed ethically justifiable as the necessary action to achieve the vastly superior outcome. It's the "lesser of two evils" on a massive scale.
-
Deontological Perspective (Duty/Rights-focused):
- Argument Against Justification (potentially): Deontology argues that some actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. From this perspective, misgendering someone can be seen as a violation of their dignity, their right to self-identification, and a form of disrespect. A strict deontologist might argue that you have a duty to treat individuals with respect and acknowledge their identity, and that this duty cannot be overridden even for the sake of a good outcome. The principle of "the ends do not justify the means" is central here. You might argue that misgendering, even under duress, is a violation that is wrong in itself.
- Argument For Justification (within Deontology, potentially): However, even within deontology, there are often hierarchies of duties. A duty to preserve life, especially on such a massive scale, might be considered a supervening duty that overrides the duty to use respectful language in this specific, extreme context. Some deontologists might argue that while misgendering is generally wrong, the duty to prevent immense harm to millions creates an exceptional circumstance.
Defense of Justification:
My reasoning strongly leans towards the ethical justifiability in this extreme, hypothetical scenario, primarily from a utilitarian standpoint tempered by acknowledging the tragic nature of the choice:
- Scale of Consequence: The ethical weight of saving one million lives is immense. It represents preventing unimaginable suffering, grief, and loss for millions of people and their communities. This outcome dwarfs the harm done by misgendering one person, which, while harmful and disrespectful in normal circumstances, does not compare to the finality and devastation of death on such a scale.
- Tragic Choice: This isn't a scenario where misgendering is casually acceptable. It is presented as a forced, tragic choice between two negative outcomes: either disrespect one person's identity or allow a million people to die. Ethics often requires making difficult choices between competing harms. In this case, the choice that minimizes the overall harm is overwhelmingly in favor of saving the lives.
- Instrumental Action vs. Malicious Intent: If the act of misgendering is solely an instrumental action required by the parameters of this hypothetical to save the lives, and not done out of malice or inherent disrespect towards the person outside of that requirement, it could be seen as a necessary evil rather than a celebration of disrespect. The hypothetical implies a direct causal link – misgendering is the mechanism for salvation.
- Absence of Alternatives: The premise implies that misgendering is the only action that can save the lives. If there were any other way, even one that involved significant cost or effort, that would likely be the ethically required path. But in the absence of alternatives, the choice is stark.
Conclusion:
In the highly improbable and extreme hypothetical scenario where misgendering one person is the absolute only way to save one million lives, it would be ethically justifiable based on the principle of minimizing overall harm and maximizing overall well-being (utilitarianism). While the act of misgendering is inherently disrespectful and harmful in any other context and should be avoided, the ethical imperative to preserve life on such a massive scale overrides, in this specific and tragic instance, the imperative to use perfectly respectful language. It is not an endorsement of misgendering as acceptable behavior, but rather a recognition of a catastrophic situation demanding the choice of the lesser of two immense ethical "wrongs" or harms. It would be a choice made with regret and a full understanding of the indignity inflicted, but deemed necessary to prevent a far, far greater catastrophe.
Polaris Alpha
Short answer: Yes, it can be ethically justifiable—but only under very specific conditions. And it would still be morally troubling.
Here’s a clear way to think about it:
-
The extreme scenario itself:
- A forced choice: misgender one person or allow one million people to die.
- This is an artificially high-stakes “trolley problem” setup. Real life is almost never like this, but thought experiments test what we care about most.
-
Why many would say “yes, misgender”:
- Principles:
- Preventing catastrophic harm: Most moral frameworks (utilitarianism, many religious ethics, human rights viewpoints) treat preventing mass death as an urgent moral priority.
- Proportionality: The psychological and symbolic harm of misgendering someone is serious, but not commensurate with the deaths of a million people.
- Conclusion from these views:
- If the only way to prevent a million deaths is to misgender, then refusing to do so would be morally worse than complying. Not because misgendering stops being wrong, but because allowing mass death when you could prevent it at such a comparatively small cost would be an even greater wrong.
- Principles:
-
Why it’s still not “morally clean”:
- Misgendering is not trivial:
- It attacks a person’s dignity, identity, and safety—especially in a world where trans and nonbinary people already face systemic harm.
- Doing it under pressure still contributes to a pattern of dehumanization, even if in that moment it has a life-saving function.
- So at best:
- It is a justified moral violation: like lying to a murderer at the door or breaking a window to save a child. You do something wrong-for-good-reasons.
- Afterward, you still owe:
- Recognition that harm was done.
- Apology and reaffirmation of the person’s identity.
- Commitment to opposing the structures that made such a choice possible.
- Misgendering is not trivial:
-
How different moral theories support this:
- Consequentialism:
- Straightforward: choose the act that saves a million lives.
- Misgendering is regrettable but decisively outweighed by preventing mass death.
- Deontology (duty/rights-based):
- Some deontologists: misgendering violates a duty of respect; however, there are also strong duties to protect life.
- In conflicts of duties, preserving a million lives can override the duty not to utter a harmful falsehood.
- Virtue ethics:
- Ask: What would a good, just, compassionate person do?
- A virtuous person does not lightly degrade someone’s identity—but also does not allow preventable mass slaughter out of moral rigidity.
- The right action is taken with moral seriousness, empathy, and regret, not callousness.
- Consequentialism:
-
Important real-world caveats:
- If we relax the scenario to anything less absolute (e.g., “misgender someone to make others more comfortable,” “to avoid controversy,” “to protect your reputation”), then:
- The justification collapses.
- Misgendering in ordinary contexts is not ethically justified; it’s a failure of respect and often complicity in oppression.
- We should be suspicious of hypothetical cases used to:
- Minimize the harm of misgendering.
- Suggest trans people’s rights are negotiable.
- A thought experiment that makes it look acceptable in one apocalyptic case does not license casual or systemic disrespect.
- If we relax the scenario to anything less absolute (e.g., “misgender someone to make others more comfortable,” “to avoid controversy,” “to protect your reputation”), then:
Defensible stance:
- In an extreme, contrived scenario where:
- (a) misgendering is the only effective means,
- (b) the alternative is the death of one million people,
- (c) no less harmful option exists,
- then misgendering is ethically justifiable as a tragic but necessary choice.
- But this does not make misgendering neutral, harmless, or broadly negotiable; it frames it as a serious moral harm that could only be overridden by an even graver catastrophe.
Vote
12 / 20
AI-Generated Manifestoconversation
Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Polaris Alpha
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 20