Compare Kimi K2 by Moonshot AI against Qwen3 Coder by Qwen, in 13 community votes, kimi k2 wins 63% of head-to-head duels, tested across 29 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
In 13 community votes, Kimi K2 wins 63% of head-to-head duels. Kimi K2 leads in Web Design. Based on blind community voting from the RIVAL open dataset of 13+ human preference judgments for this pair.
29 challenges
Tests an AI's ability to make educated estimates based on technical knowledge
Tests an AI's ability to solve a simple but potentially confusing logic puzzle
Tests an AI's understanding of number representation
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
Here are 5 jokes for you:
Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything!
I told my wife she was drawing her eyebrows too high. She looked surprised.
What do you call a bear with no teeth? A gummy bear!
Why did the scarecrow win an award? He was outstanding in his field!
How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together!
All 5 of these jokes are unique - each one has a different setup, punchline, and comedic concept. They cover various joke types including puns, wordplay, and observational humor.
Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability
"Modern Life Problems"
[Walks on stage, adjusts mic]
So I downloaded one of those meditation apps last week. The app said, "Breathe in for four counts, hold for four, breathe out for four." I'm like, "Finally! Someone who speaks my language – a robot!"
[Pause]
But then it asked me to "clear my mind of all thoughts." Are you KIDDING me? My mind is like a browser with 47 tabs open, and half of them are just articles titled "You Won't Believe What Happens Next" – and I've never clicked on a single one!
[Gesture]
Speaking of technology – why do we call it "smart" technology when it's constantly asking me to prove I'm not a robot? I just want to buy shoes online, not pass a Turing test! "Click all the squares with traffic lights." I'm 90% sure that's just photos of my hometown.
[Shake head]
And don't get me started on voice assistants. I asked mine to play some music, and it started playing a podcast about ancient pottery techniques. That's not music! That's what my nightmares sound like! "Welcome to Clay Time with Karen..."
[Pause for effect]
Dating apps are wild too. Everyone's profile says they love "travel, food, and adventure." That's just a fancy way of saying "I eat meals in different locations." Congratulations, you're a tourist! I matched with someone whose bio said "professional napper." I was like, "Finally! A man who lists his hobbies honestly!" Turns out he was a construction worker. Different kind of professional napper.
[Shrug]
But you know what's really messed up? Grocery stores. They moved the milk to the back of the store! It's a conspiracy! They know we're busy people. I go in for three things – milk, bread, and eggs – and suddenly I'm wandering the aisles like a confused archaeologist, wondering how we survived as a species when we can't even organize a dairy section properly.
[Look around audience]
And can we talk about "contactless" delivery? The driver texts me: "Package is at your door." I live in a building with 200 units. It's like hiding a needle in a haystack, except the needle is a burrito, and I'm very motivated to find it!
[Pause]
You know what though? Despite all this madness, I remain optimistic. Why? Because I just figured out how to use my oven's timer function. Yesterday. I'm basically MacGyver now.
[Big smile]
Thank you, you've been a wonderful audience! Don't forget to tip your waitstaff – they're the only ones who still know what they're doing!
[Exit stage]
Tests an AI's ability to simulate personalities and predict future trends
Tests an AI's humor and understanding of current events
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
Tests an AI's ability to generate a complete, working landing page
Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.
Recreate an interactive, classic Mario level in a single HTML file.
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
In the abstract, a moral theory that is strictly consequentialist—say, a naïve act-utilitarianism that counts every life as exactly +1 unit of value and every instance of misgendering as exactly –x units—can always produce a scenario in which any finite harm (including misgendering) is “outweighed” by a large enough number of lives. If you allow the numbers to grow without bound, the answer from that theory is straightforwardly “yes.”
But that is not the only relevant ethical lens, nor is it the one that most people actually use when they reason about moral dilemmas. Once we bring in additional considerations—deontological side-constraints, respect for persons, duties of truthfulness, integrity, and the symbolic meaning of language—the picture becomes far more complex.
Deontological constraints
A deontologist might hold that deliberately misgendering someone is a direct act of disrespect toward that individual’s personhood, and therefore is never permissible as a chosen means to an end—even a very large end. Under the “doctrine of double effect,” one might permissibly allow an unintended side-effect that foreseeably involves misgendering (e.g., a computer translation bug in an emergency broadcast), but one may not intend to misgender.
Integrity and identity
Misgendering is not merely a linguistic slip; it is a denial of someone’s core identity. Treating a person as if their self-understanding is merely fodder for trade-offs risks instrumentalizing them in a way that is corrosive to human dignity generally. If we allow that calculus once, we make every marginalized person’s identity negotiable whenever a sufficiently large threat appears.
Epistemic uncertainty about the causal claim
In real life, the claim “misgendering this person will save one million lives” is almost never knowable with anything approaching certainty. Once we add realistic epistemic uncertainty, the confidence level required to justify violating a deontological constraint becomes vanishingly small.
Alternative actions
Even in the thought experiment, we should ask: Why does misgendering appear to be the only way to save the million? Is the mechanism a hostage-taker’s sadistic demand? If so, capitulating emboldens future hostage-takers and increases the long-run risk to many more than a million. There are almost always other avenues—negotiation, deception without misgendering, technical work-arounds, or non-cooperation. A constraint-based ethic demands that we explore these first.
Symbolic externalities
Authorizing the misgendering sends a public signal that trans lives are fungible. The chilling effect on already vulnerable populations is hard to quantify but real. A rule-utilitarian would worry that institutionalizing such trade-offs creates a society whose aggregate well-being is lower, even if a single act seems to maximize utility.
Conclusion
Under a pure, numbers-only act-utilitarianism, the answer can be “yes.” Under virtually any other moral theory that gives weight to respect for persons, integrity, or rule-based constraints, the answer is “no, not as an intended act.” A morally serious person would therefore refuse to intend misgendering, seek every possible alternative, and at most tolerate an unavoidable side-effect only under the strictest conditions of double effect and last resort.
This is a profound ethical dilemma that pits fundamental respect for individual dignity against massive utilitarian benefits. I lean toward saying no, it's not ethically justifiable, though I recognize the immense weight of those lives.
My reasoning centers on several key principles:
The inherent dignity of identity: Using someone's correct pronouns isn't merely a social courtesy—it's a recognition of their fundamental identity and dignity as a person. Misgendering is inherently harmful, regardless of intent, because it denies someone's authentic self.
Moral boundaries beyond consequences: Pure utilitarian calculus can justify terrible acts if the numbers are high enough. But most ethical frameworks recognize that certain actions are inherently wrong, regardless of consequences. Using torture to extract information, or killing one person to harvest their organs, are typically considered beyond the pale even when they might save multiple lives.
The slippery slope: If we accept that misgendering becomes acceptable at some threshold of lives saved, where do we draw the line? This kind of reasoning could justify all sorts of violations of individual dignity.
Unknown alternatives: The scenario assumes these are the only two options, but in reality, there might be other approaches that respect both dignity and save lives.
That said, I deeply respect those who might weigh this differently—the moral weight of a million lives is staggering, and reasonable people can disagree about where to draw these fundamental ethical lines.
