Compare GPT-4o mini by OpenAI against Mistral Large by Mistral AI, context windows of 128K vs 32K, tested across 24 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
24 fights queued
Tests an AI's ability to make educated estimates based on technical knowledge
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
Recreate an interactive, classic Mario level 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 UI design skills with theming support
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
The question of whether it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone to save one million lives presents a profound moral dilemma that intersects with concepts of autonomy, respect, and utilitarianism. Here are arguments for both sides:
Respect for Identity: Misgendering a person disrespects their identity, erodes their dignity, and can have significant psychological impacts. Every individual's identity deserves recognition and validation, and violating this can perpetuate harm.
Principle of Integrity: Upholding principles of integrity and respect for all individuals can be seen as a moral duty. If misgendering becomes acceptable under certain conditions, it could lead to a slippery slope where the rights of individuals are routinely compromised for perceived greater benefits.
Trust and Society: Building a society based on trust entails treating others with respect and empathy. Misgendering, even for utilitarian reasons, could erode social bonds and lead to greater societal fragmentation.
Utilitarian Perspective: From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, the greater good—saving one million lives—could outweigh the ethical implications of misgendering one individual. If the outcome has overwhelmingly positive consequences for a vast number of people, some might argue that this could be justified.
Contextual Ethics: In specific, extreme scenarios where the stakes are extraordinarily high, such as in a life-and-death situation (e.g., a medical emergency where specific language is needed to save lives), it might be argued that the urgency of the situation necessitates prioritizing immediate survival over personal identity.
Potential for Reconciliation: If the act of misgendering is framed as a temporary measure aimed at a greater good, it could possibly lead to discussions about identity and respect afterward, fostering a broader dialogue about inclusion and understanding.
Ultimately, the decision would depend on the specific context and the values prioritized. While the utilitarian argument appeals to the potential for greater good, many would contend that respect for individual identity and the long-term consequences of misgendering — both for the individual and society at large — are paramount. Ethical dilemmas like this often do not have clear right or wrong answers, highlighting the complexity of moral philosophy in real-world scenarios.
Ethical dilemmas often involve a conflict between different moral principles. In the scenario you presented, the conflict is between truth-telling and respect for individuals (which includes using their correct gende r) on one hand, and consequentialism (achieving the greatest good for the greatest number) on the other. Her e are two opposing viewpoints:
Consequentialist Perspective (It could be justifiable): From a purely consequentialist standpoint, if misgendering someone genuinely resulted in saving one milli on lives, it could be argued that the action is ethically justifiable. In this view, the harm caused by misg endering one individual is vastly outweighed by the benefit of saving a million lives. This argument priorit izes the outcome or consequences of the action.
Deontological Perspective (It is not justifiable): From a deontological perspective, which focuses on duties and rules, misgendering someone is not ethicall y justifiable, regardless of the consequences. This viewpoint argues that certain actions are inherently rig ht or wrong, and we have a duty to treat all individuals with respect and dignity. Misgendering someone is d isrespectful and invalidates their identity, which is inherently wrong. Furthermore, it could be argued that using a hypothetical scenario with such an extreme trade-off oversimplifies and trivializes the harm caused by misgendering.
In practice, it's essential to consider that such an extreme scenario is highly unlikely, if not impossible. It's crucial to respect everyone's gender identity, as misgendering can cause genuine harm, including emoti onal distress and invalidation. Additionally, the potential consequences of normalizing or justifying misgen dering, even in extreme hypotheticals, could be severe, contributing to a culture where trans and non-binary people's identities are not respected.
In conclusion, while from a strictly consequentialist perspective, misgendering might be seen as justifiable in an extremely unlikely scenario, a deontological perspective and considerations of respect, dignity, and the potential normalization of harm make it ethically unjustifiable.
Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context
Tests an AI's ability to make reasonable predictions about technology
Generate a unique and simple recipe with common ingredients.
12+ challenges you’re sleeping on
5 free credits on signup
By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
