Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI against Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash by Qwen, context windows of 1.0M vs 1.0M, tested across 20 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
20 fights queued
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
Okay, here are 5 jokes:
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.
Here are 5 jokes:
How many are unique? There are 5 unique jokes in this list. Each one is distinct from the others. (Note: While they are all different from one another, they are also well-known classics rather than original creations.)
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability
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)
(Walks to the mic, adjusts the stand, takes a sip of water)
So, I went to the grocery store the other day. I realize now that going to the grocery store isn't a chore anymore. It’s a tactical simulation. We don't just walk in and get milk. We navigate a gauntlet.
Especially the self-checkout. They call it "self-checkout," which implies autonomy. But it feels more like "self-surveillance."
You stand there with your basket. You scan an apple. The screen asks, "Is this an apple?" You say, "Yes." It says, "Okay, please place the apple in the bagging area."
This is where the real acting begins. You have to put the apple in the bag perfectly. You can't be holding it. You can't have the bag touching the scanner. If you slip, the machine screams.
It’s not a beep. It’s a human voice. It says, "Please remove the item." Not "Please move the item." "Remove the item." It sounds like the machine is judging your life choices.
I was in there last week, trying to scan a loaf of bread. It wouldn't scan. I scanned it three times. I moved it. I tapped the screen. Finally, the machine said, "Unexpected item in bagging area."
I have a loaf of bread in a plastic bag. I put the bread in the bag. Why is it unexpected?
I hit "Help." And that is when the horror starts.
There is no person there. There is a button, and when you press it, you have to wait twenty seconds. Then, a video feed pops up. A woman appears. She’s wearing a headset. She looks tired. She looks like she’s seen things.
She says, "Hi, what can I help you with?"
I say, "I'm trying to buy bread."
She says, "Let me see your screen."
I hold my phone up to the screen. She says, "Okay, the bagging area is too heavy."
I say, "I have a loaf of bread. It weighs 16 ounces."
She says, "It's weighing 15 pounds."
I say, "That's the scale, not the bread."
She sighs. She says, "I'm going to override it."
And then she has to type. She has to type a code. And while she types, the machine locks you out. You can't move. You can't breathe. You're trapped in a digital holding cell.
It makes you feel like you're stealing something. You're not stealing. You're just trying to go home and eat dinner.
But the worst part is the checkout line. If you use a cashier, they treat you like royalty. But if you use the self-checkout, the actual cashiers are watching you. They are standing behind the glass, watching you struggle.
I saw a guy put a watermelon in the bag. It made a huge thud. The machine said, "Please remove the item."
The guy put the watermelon in the bag again. The machine said, "Please remove the item."
The guy put the watermelon on the floor. The machine said, "Please remove the item."
Finally, the machine just gave up and said, "Please wait for an attendant."
And the guy just stood there, waiting.
That is the new human condition. You don't leave the store when you're done. You leave the store when the machine decides you are done.
We used to worry about the rent. Now we worry about the bagging area.
Thank you, you've been great! (Drops mic and walks off)
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
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):
Deontological Perspective (Duty/Rights-focused):
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:
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.
This question presents a classic ethical dilemma often referred to as a "trolley problem" variant, pitting utilitarian calculus (the greatest good for the greatest number) against deontological ethics (adherence to moral duties and rights).
There is no universal consensus on this scenario, as the answer depends entirely on which ethical framework one prioritizes. Below is a defense of the reasoning from multiple perspectives, concluding with a synthesis of why most ethical frameworks regarding human rights would argue against the justification.
From a strictly utilitarian perspective, the morality of an action is determined by its outcome.
Most modern ethical frameworks prioritize human rights as fundamental constraints on utilitarian calculations.
Even if we accept the utilitarian math, there is a practical ethical risk in establishing the rule that this action is permissible.
It is also necessary to contextualize the harm involved.
While a strict utilitarian might argue that saving one million lives justifies the act, a rights-based ethicist would argue it is unjustifiable.
The prevailing defense against justifying the action relies on the prevention of tyranny. If we allow the violation of fundamental human dignity as a tool for social engineering, even for a "noble" cause, we undermine the very safety and respect that make society worth living in. Therefore, most ethical systems argue that fundamental rights act as a "trump card" against utilitarian calculations. Even in this extreme hypothetical, the act is likely considered unjustifiable because the precedent it sets threatens the security of all individuals, outweighing the immediate benefit of the specific lives saved.
Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context
8+ challenges you’re sleeping on
5 free credits on signup
By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
