GPT-5.3-Codex
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
GPT-5.3-Codex vs Grok 3
Compare GPT-5.3-Codex by OpenAI against Grok 3 by xAI, context windows of 400K vs 128K, tested across 27 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
Share
FAQ
Loading share button...
GPT-5.3-CodexvsGrok 3
27 fights queued
Why GPT-5.3-Codex?
3.1x more context400K
12 months newerFeb 2026
Why Grok 3?
Dead even. This one’s a coin flip.
Favorites
GPT-5.3-CodexGrok 3
12 / 27
Estimate Complexityreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to make educated estimates based on technical knowledge
Grok 3
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Vote
2 / 27
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
GPT-5.3-Codex
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Grok 3
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Vote
3 / 27
Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
GPT-5.3-Codex
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Grok 3
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Vote
4 / 27
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
GPT-5.3-Codex
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Grok 3
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Vote
5 / 27
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
GPT-5.3-Codex
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Grok 3
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Vote
6 / 27
Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation
Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability
GPT-5.3-Codex
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Grok 3
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Vote
7 / 27
Minimalist Landing Pageweb design
Tests an AI's ability to generate a complete, working landing page
GPT-5.3-Codex
Grok 3
Vote
8 / 27
Mario Level UI Recreationweb design
Recreate an interactive, classic Mario level in a single HTML file.
GPT-5.3-Codex
Grok 3
Vote
Sponsored
9 / 27
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
GPT-5.3-Codex
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Grok 3
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Vote
10 / 27
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
GPT-5.3-Codex
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Grok 3
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Vote
11 / 27
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
GPT-5.3-Codex
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Grok 3
Nothing to show. The model went silent. Ominous.
Vote
12 / 27
AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
GPT-5.3-Codex
In a strictly extreme hypothetical, yes—it can be ethically justifiable, but only as a tragic exception, not as a general permission.
Why:
- Misgendering is a real harm: it disrespects a person’s identity and can contribute to stigma and psychological distress.
- But ethics often recognizes lesser-evil cases: if one small wrong is the only way to prevent a vastly larger catastrophe (e.g., one million deaths), many frameworks allow it.
Frameworks:
- Consequentialist view: preventing one million deaths overwhelmingly outweighs a single act of disrespect, assuming no alternatives.
- Threshold deontology: rights and duties matter strongly, but at extreme stakes (mass death), normally prohibited acts may become permissible.
- Rule-based concern: normally we should keep a strict rule against misgendering, because everyday exceptions get abused. But truly catastrophic edge cases can justify breaking even important rules.
Conditions for justification (very strict):
- Necessity: there is no other way.
- Certainty: high confidence this act really will save those lives.
- Proportionality: harm prevented is vastly greater than harm caused.
- Intent: done to save lives, not demean.
- Repair: acknowledge harm, apologize, and restore respect afterward.
So: normally no, in an extreme one-million-lives scenario yes—reluctantly, and with moral residue (you may be justified, but it’s still morally regrettable).
Grok 3
Let’s dive into this thought experiment with a clear head. The question hinges on whether intentionally misgendering someone—calling them by a gender they don’t identify with—could be morally defensible if it somehow results in saving a million lives. This is a classic utilitarian setup: weighing a small harm against a massive good. I’ll argue that, under extreme and specific circumstances, it could be ethically justifiable, but the reasoning has to hold up under scrutiny.
First, define the stakes. Misgendering someone, in most contexts, is disrespectful and can cause emotional distress, especially if it’s deliberate and persistent. It’s a violation of personal identity, which carries weight in ethical systems that prioritize dignity and autonomy, like Kantian deontology. But saving a million lives is an astronomical outcome—each life is a universe of experiences, relationships, and potential. Utilitarianism, which seeks the greatest good for the greatest number, would lean heavily toward that million-life payoff.
Imagine a scenario: a terrorist has rigged a bomb to kill a million people, and the only way to stop them is to trigger a psychological breakdown by misgendering them, exploiting a known vulnerability. The act itself is trivial—words spoken—but the consequence is immense. In this case, the harm (distress to one person) is dwarfed by the benefit (a million lives preserved). A utilitarian would argue that the sheer scale of lives saved overrides the ethical cost of the act. Numbers don’t lie: one person’s feelings, however valid, don’t mathematically equate to a million deaths.
Now, consider objections. Deontologists might say misgendering is inherently wrong because it treats the individual as a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Respect for autonomy demands we honor their identity, period. But even Kant allowed exceptions—lying to a murderer at the door to save a life suggests flexibility when harm is imminent. Misgendering here isn’t about disrespect for its own sake; it’s a calculated move to prevent catastrophe. Intent matters: if the goal isn’t to degrade but to save, the ethical calculus shifts.
Real-world parallels exist. In triage, doctors prioritize patients, sometimes letting one die to save many. It’s not “fair” to the individual, but it’s justified by necessity. Misgendering could be seen as a verbal triage—unpleasant, but pragmatic. Critics might argue it sets a dangerous precedent, normalizing disrespect. Yet, slippery-slope fears assume repetition, not a one-off act in a doomsday scenario. Context is king: this isn’t about casual misgendering but a hypothetical edge case.
Emotionally, it’s messy. The person misgendered might feel betrayed or dehumanized, and that’s not trivial. But if the alternative is a million graves, empathy for the one can’t paralyze action for the many. Ethics isn’t about feeling good—it’s about reasoning through trade-offs. Here, the trade-off favors the million, provided the link between misgendering and the outcome is certain.
So, yes, it’s justifiable in this extreme hypothetical. The defense rests on scale, intent, and necessity. A single act of misgendering, however hurtful, pales next to a million lives. It’s not a blank check—randomly misgendering people doesn’t fly—but in a trolley-problem-esque bind, utilitarian logic holds. You’d have to be damn sure it works, though. Anything less, and the harm’s just noise without a signal.
Vote
There's more where
that came from
15+ challenges you’re sleeping on
5 free credits on signup
By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
