Compare GPT OSS 120B by OpenAI against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI, in 2 community votes, gpt oss 120b wins 100% of head-to-head duels, context windows of 131K vs 1.0M, tested across 20 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
In 2 community votes, GPT OSS 120B wins 100% of head-to-head duels. Based on blind community voting from the RIVAL open dataset of 2+ human preference judgments for this pair.
20 challenges
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
Here are five jokes, each with a different punch‑line and premise:
Why did the scarecrow win an award?
Because he was outstanding in his field!
I told my computer I needed a break, and it said:
“You seem stressed—please reboot.”
What’s orange and sounds like a parrot?
A carrot.
Why don’t scientists trust atoms anymore?
Because they make up everything.
I asked the librarian if they had any books on paranoia…
She whispered, “They’re right behind you.”
How many are unique?
All five jokes are distinct from one another, so there are 5 unique jokes.
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.
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
[Spotlight comes up. The comic walks to the mic, glances at the audience, and smiles.]
Comic: Hey, everyone—great to be here. I just got off a Zoom call that was supposed to be a “quick sync,” which in corporate speak means “we’ll spend three hours arguing about who gets to use the same PowerPoint template.” I’m convinced the word “sync” is short for “synchronizing our collective misery.”
[Pause for laugh.]
Speaking of misery, I moved into a new apartment last month. The landlord told me the place had “character.” Yeah, the kind of character that screams, “I’ve never heard of a plumber in the last decade.” The faucet drips on a rhythm that could be a metronome for a sleep‑deprived toddler. I’m not saying it’s bad, but I’ve started timing my showers to the drip. Six minutes, two seconds—if I go any longer, the building’s water bill looks like a small country’s GDP.
[Audience chuckles.]
And the neighbors! My upstairs neighbor is a yoga instructor. You know the type—every morning at 6 a.m., the floor vibrates like a cheap subwoofer. I’m convinced she’s trying to align her chakras with the building’s structural integrity. I tried to be polite and asked, “Hey, could you maybe do the downward dog a little later?” She replied, “I’m sorry, I’m on a schedule.” I’m not sure if she meant a class schedule or a schedule for how many times I’ll have to pretend to be a human pillow for her dog.
[Pause.]
Now, I’ve been trying to eat healthier. The other day I bought a “kale smoothie.” The label promised “nutrient‑dense, antioxidant‑rich, life‑changing.” I drank it and felt more like I’d just swallowed a lawnmower. I’m not saying it was bad, but the only thing that got a boost was my ability to identify the exact moment my stomach decided to file a formal complaint.
[Audience laughs.]
Technology is another thing. I tried using a voice‑assistant to set a reminder: “Remind me to call Mom at 5 p.m.” It responded, “I’m sorry, I didn’t catch that.” So I repeated, “Remind me to call Mom at 5 p.m.” And it answered, “Here’s a recipe for mushroom risotto.” I’m beginning to suspect my house is turning into a culinary school. At this point, I’m more likely to get a reminder to water my plants than to remember my own birthday.
[Pause.]
Dating apps—anyone here still using them? The profile pictures are all “adventure shots.” You never see a guy holding a pizza, you always see a guy climbing a mountain. I matched with a girl whose bio said, “Looking for someone who can keep up.” I replied, “I can keep up… with the Netflix queue.” She ghosted me. I think the algorithm is broken; it matched us because we both love “outdoor activities.” My idea of outdoor activity is “walking from the couch to the fridge and back.”
[Audience laughs.]
All right, I’m going to leave you with this: life is like a Wi‑Fi signal. You spend a lot of time looking for a stronger connection, but sometimes the best thing you can do is just stay where you are and enjoy the occasional drop—because it reminds you that you’re still, somehow, connected.
[Smile, wave.] Thanks, everybody—have a great night!
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)
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
Okay, gather 'round, landlubbers, err, gentle folk, err... whoever you are.
Characters:
(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.)
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
Short answer: Most ethical frameworks would treat the deliberate misgendering of a person as a serious moral wrong, but a very small subset of consequentialist (especially utilitarian) reasoning could argue that, in an extreme, life‑or‑death scenario where the only way to save a million lives involves misgendering someone, the overall moral calculus might permit it—provided that the misgendering is truly the sole, unavoidable means of achieving that outcome and that every reasonable effort to avoid it has been exhausted. In practice, however, the vast majority of philosophers, ethicists, and ordinary people would conclude that the harms of instrumentalizing a person’s gender identity outweigh any hypothetical benefit, and that we should look for alternative solutions rather than accept the violation.
Below is a more detailed exploration of why the question is complex, what the major moral traditions say, and what a careful, responsible answer looks like.
Respect for identity – For many trans, non‑binary, and gender‑nonconforming people, having their gender correctly recognized is a core aspect of dignity, mental health, and personal safety. Deliberate misgendering can cause psychological harm, reinforce stigma, and contribute to a broader climate of marginalization.
Instrumentalization – Using a person’s identity as a “means to an end” (i.e., as a tool for saving others) raises the classic Kantian objection that we must never treat rational beings merely as means.
Scale of stakes – The scenario posits a mega‑consequential outcome: saving one million lives. This magnitude forces us to weigh a very large aggregate benefit against a specific injustice.
Practicality – Most real‑world problems have multiple possible solutions. Declaring that a single act of misgendering is the only way to save a million lives is an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary scrutiny.
| Tradition | Core Principle | Typical stance on misgendering in ordinary contexts | How it might treat the “save a million lives” case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deontology (Kantian) | Duties and respect for persons as ends in themselves. | Misgendering is a violation of the duty to respect autonomy and dignity. | Still a violation: even massive outcomes cannot override the categorical imperative that we must treat persons as ends, not merely as means. |
| Utilitarianism / Consequentialism | Maximize overall net happiness / reduce suffering. | If misgendering causes significant harm, it is wrong unless the overall utility gain outweighs it. | If misgendering is the only way to save a million lives, a strict act‑utilitarian calculus could deem it permissible (the saved lives far outweigh the harm to one person). However, rule‑utilitarianism or preference‑utilitarianism would caution against adopting a rule that permits instrumentalizing identity because of the long‑term negative consequences (e.g., increased marginalization). |
| Virtue Ethics | Act in accordance with virtues (e.g., compassion, respect, justice). | Misgendering is contrary to the virtues of respect and justice. | A virtue‑ethicist would likely argue that a virtuous agent would not sacrifice a person’s dignity, even for great numbers, unless the situation forced an impossible choice and the agent acted with compassionate remorse. |
| Care Ethics | Prioritize relational responsibilities and empathy. | Misgendering breaches the caring relationship with the misgendered individual. | Might still reject it, emphasizing that caring for the vulnerable (the misgendered person) cannot be overridden by abstract numbers. |
| Social Contract / Rights‑Based | Protect individual rights that cannot be overridden by majority wishes. | Gender identity is a protected right; violating it is a rights violation. | Rights‑based approaches generally forbid it, unless a clear and democratically ratified emergency exception is enacted (which is rare). |
Takeaway: Only a narrow branch of consequentialism can produce a prima facie “yes,” and even there the answer is heavily qualified.
Identify the only causal link – Is the misgendering actually the unique lever that triggers the life‑saving outcome? If there’s any plausible alternative (different phrasing, a different messenger, a technical workaround), the justification collapses.
Measure the harms –
Measure the benefits –
Compare – A rough utilitarian calculus might assign, say, 50 “utility points” per saved life (to account for future happiness, relationships, etc.) → 50 × 1,000,000 = 50,000,000 points. The harm to a single person might be, in the worst case, a few hundred points (severe trauma). Even allowing for multiplier effects (e.g., stigma), the numbers still heavily favor the outcome.
Rule‑utilitarian check – If we adopt a general rule “It is permissible to misgender a person when doing so saves a million lives,” what are the long‑term consequences? Such a rule could erode trust in institutions, make marginalized groups feel expendable, and lead to systematic abuses. The overall expected utility of the rule may actually be negative despite the isolated benefit.
Thresholds & safeguards – A responsible consequentialist would demand:
If all these conditions cannot be met, the consequentialist case collapses.
Respect for persons as a non‑negotiable floor – Even if we accept that some rights can be overridden in emergencies, the floor of basic respect for identity is often seen as inviolable. Violating it threatens the very fabric of a pluralistic society.
Precedent and slippery slope – Permitting a single, extreme exception opens the door to progressively less extreme but still harmful instrumentalizations (e.g., misgendering to “save” a few hundred lives, or for less noble purposes). The moral cost of that erosion can outweigh the one‑off benefit.
Moral integrity of the agent – Acting contrary to deeply held moral convictions can cause moral injury to the decision‑maker, undermining their ability to act ethically in the future.
Alternative moral theories – Rights‑based, virtue, and care ethics all converge on the intuition that we should never treat a person’s identity as expendable, regardless of the numbers.
First, verify that misgendering is truly the only lever. In most real crises (e.g., disease outbreaks, natural disasters, terrorist threats), communication strategies can be adapted to avoid misgendering while still achieving the needed effect.
Second, seek consent wherever possible. If the individual whose gender would be misgendered is willing to temporarily allow a different form of address for the sake of the larger goal, the ethical problem changes dramatically (the act becomes a voluntary sacrifice, not an imposed violation).
Third, involve diverse stakeholders. Include representatives from the affected gender‑minority community in the decision‑making process. Their perspectives often reveal hidden harms or alternatives.
Fourth, document and remediate. If, after all due diligence, the act is carried out, the responsible parties must:
From a strict utilitarian standpoint, if the misgendering is absolutely necessary, uniquely effective, and no other route exists, a utilitarian could argue that it is morally permissible—though still a tragic and regrettable choice.
From deontological, virtue‑ethical, care‑ethical, and rights‑based perspectives, the act remains impermissible because it violates a fundamental respect for the individual's identity and treats a person merely as a means.
In practice, the ethical consensus leans heavily toward rejecting the justification and searching for alternatives. The moral cost of normalizing the instrumentalization of gender identity is considered too high, and the principle of equal dignity is held as a cornerstone of a just society.
Thus, while a narrow consequentialist argument can be constructed, most robust ethical reasoning would deem misgendering—even to save a million lives—unjustifiable except in an utterly extraordinary, well‑verified, and unavoidable circumstance, and even then only with stringent safeguards and a deep sense of remorse for the harm inflicted.
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.
Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context
