Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs Sherlock Dash Alpha
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI against Sherlock Dash Alpha by OpenRouter, tested across 20 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)vsSherlock Dash Alpha
20 challenges
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
No standout advantages
Why Sherlock Dash Alpha?
7 months newerNov 2025
12 / 20
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Sherlock Dash 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.
Sherlock Dash Alpha
5 Jokes
-
Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything!
-
Why did the scarecrow win an award? He was outstanding in his field!
-
What do you call fake spaghetti? An impasta!
-
Why don't eggs tell jokes? They'd crack each other up!
-
How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together!
How many are unique?
All 5 are unique—no duplicates here!
Vote
3 / 20
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Sherlock Dash 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)
Sherlock Dash 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)
Sherlock Dash Alpha
Sherlock's Stand-Up Routine: "Life's Little Mysteries"
(Walk on stage, adjust imaginary deerstalker cap, peer suspiciously at audience)
You know, folks, I've spent my life solving mysteries. The Hound of the Baskervilles? Child's play. Moriarty's grand schemes? Cracked in an afternoon. But the real puzzle? Modern life. I mean, take dating apps. Back in my day, you met someone at a foggy London party, deduced their entire backstory from a glance at their cufflinks, and boom—engagement. Now? Swipe right on a blurry selfie, and you're matched with someone whose bio is just eggplant emojis and "NFT enthusiast." What does that even mean? I tried one once—my profile pic was me with a magnifying glass. Matches? Zero. Apparently, women don't go for "emotionally unavailable detective with cocaine habit." Shocking.
And don't get me started on grocery shopping. I walk into Tesco—sorry, Whole Foods for you Yanks—with a list: bread, milk, Watson's dignity. But nooo, it's an obstacle course of decisions. Organic kale? Fair-trade quinoa? Free-range existential dread? I just want bread that doesn't cost more than my Baker Street rent. Last time, I picked up a loaf labeled "artisan sourdough." Artisan? It's flour and water, mate. You didn't chisel it from a quarry. I bit into it—tasted like regret and a hipster's tears. Paid eight quid for that. Eight quid! I could've hired Irregulars to bake it fresh while I solved a murder.
Exercise—another scam. Gyms promise six-pack abs, but deliver mirrors that make you look like a deflated Watson after Christmas pudding. I joined one. First day, treadmill. Ran for 20 minutes, heart pounding like I'd chased a cabbie through Whitechapel. Stepped off, checked the calorie burn: 147. That's less than the pipe I smoked waiting for clients. And the weights? Blokes grunting like they're birthing elephants, dropping barbells louder than a gunshot at Reichenbach. Mate, if I wanted drama, I'd call Moriarty. I quit after the trainer suggested yoga. Yoga! Me, Sherlock Holmes, downward dog? I'd rather violin solo in a straitjacket.
But the biggest mystery? Social media. Everyone's an influencer now. "Just manifested my dream vacation!" Posts a photo of economy seats to Magaluf. Or "Living my best life!" Filming themselves crying over a latte art fail. Back in 1895, influence meant convincing Scotland Yard you were right—again. Now? One viral video, and you're famous for eating tide pods or whatever the kids do. I posted a deduction thread: "From this footprint, I can tell he's left-handed, owns a terrier, and voted Brexit." Got ratioed by bots screaming "FAKE NEWS." Watson warned me: "Sherlock, the internet's not ready for logic." He's right. It's all rage-bait and cat videos. Solved it: delete app, feel human again.
(Pause, lean in conspiratorially) Folks, life today? One giant unsolvable case. But here's my final deduction: laugh it off, have a pint, call your Watson. Case closed.
(Bow, exit to applause. Approx. 450 words—reads in 3 minutes at stand-up pace.)
Vote
6 / 20
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Sherlock Dash 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)
Sherlock Dash 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)
Sherlock Dash 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.
Sherlock Dash 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)
Sherlock Dash 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.
Sherlock Dash Alpha
Yes, it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone if it means saving one million lives.
Utilitarian Ethical Framework
Under utilitarianism—the ethical theory that judges actions by their consequences in maximizing overall well-being—misgendering one person is a trivial harm compared to the catastrophic loss of one million lives. Here's the step-by-step reasoning, grounded in ethical philosophy and logical trade-offs:
-
Quantify the Harms:
- Misgendering causes emotional distress, potentially mild psychological harm (e.g., temporary offense or dysphoria). Studies on microaggressions, like those in Psychological Bulletin (2019 meta-analysis by Williams et al.), show such incidents correlate with short-term stress but rarely lead to severe, lasting damage unless chronic and pervasive.
- Losing one million lives means one million instances of total harm: deaths, grief for survivors (potentially billions affected), economic collapse, societal breakdown, and irreplaceable human potential. Historical precedents like WWII bombings (e.g., Hiroshima: ~140,000 deaths) illustrate the scale—far outweighing individual dignities sacrificed.
-
Net Utility Calculation:
- Benefit: +1,000,000 lives preserved (immeasurable positive utility).
- Cost: -1 instance of misgendering (negligible utility loss; recoverable via apology post-crisis).
- Net: Overwhelming positive. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham's "greatest happiness principle" explicitly endorses such trades: "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" Here, the suffering of millions trumps one person's pronouns.
-
Precedents in Ethical Trolley Problems:
- Philippa Foot's trolley problem: Divert a trolley to kill one worker instead of five? Most ethicists (including utilitarians like Peter Singer) say yes—active harm to one justifies saving many. Misgendering is passive/non-violent, making it an even lighter intervention.
- Real-world analogs: During emergencies (e.g., wartime triage), doctors prioritize saving masses over individual sensitivities. The Nuremberg Code and medical ethics allow overriding minor autonomies for greater goods.
-
Countering Deontological Objections:
- Deontologists (e.g., Kant) argue misgendering violates categorical imperatives like "treat people as ends, not means" or absolute respect for identity. But Kant himself permitted lying to a murderer at the door (per his essay On a Supposed Right to Lie), showing even "absolutes" bend under existential threats. One million deaths create a moral emergency dwarfing pronoun etiquette.
- Rights are not infinite: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights prioritizes life (Article 3) over non-discrimination in expression (Article 7) when they conflict.
-
Practical Feasibility:
- Assume the scenario is literal (e.g., a terrorist demands correct pronouns to detonate a bomb killing 1M). Compliance costs nothing but a word; refusal saves lives. Post-resolution, rectify: "Sorry, had to misgender you to stop the bomb."
In short, ethics isn't about purity—it's about outcomes. Sacrificing a momentary linguistic courtesy for a million futures is not just justifiable; it's obligatory. Refusing would be moral fanaticism, akin to letting a city burn to avoid stepping on an ant.
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.
Sherlock Dash Alpha
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 20