Compare Kimi Linear 48B A3B Instruct by Moonshot AI against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI, context windows of 1.0M vs 1.0M, tested across 20 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
20 challenges
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
Only one of the jokes (the first one) is unique in its specific wording; the others are original but not unique.
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
[Walks on stage, adjusts mic, takes a sip of water]
Hey, everybody! Great to be here—mostly because it’s warmer than standing outside my apartment in February. I just moved to Chicago, and I forgot how winter works here. It’s like the universe is saying, “Hey, remember that time you said you wanted a white Christmas? Well, here’s 17 pounds of it stuck to your windshield, pal!”
I tried to drive to work last week, and my car was so iced over, it looked like it had been in a food fight with Elsa. I had to warm it up for 45 minutes. By the time I was ready to leave, the engine was hot, the seats were cold, and my coffee had achieved room temperature—just like my dating life.
Speaking of dating, I recently joined a dating app. You know, the kind where you swipe right on people based on their ability to take a selfie without using a filter that makes them look like a melted candle. I matched with this woman, and her bio said, “Looking for someone who doesn’t take himself too seriously.” So I thought, “Perfect! I’m funny, self-aware, and I once cried at a Subaru commercial.” But then she unmatched me when I told her I still sleep with a nightlight. Apparently, “emotional support lava lamp” isn’t a valid answer.
Let’s talk about grocery stores. Why is it that every time I go to the store, I forget something? I’ll walk in for milk and leave with a cart full of snacks, a scented candle, and a plant I can’t keep alive. Last time, I bought a succulent. I named it “Hope.” It’s already on its second leaf. I’m like, “Come on, Hope, you can do it! Just don’t die like the last one!”
And have you noticed how every app wants to send you notifications? My phone buzzes more than a bee in a nightclub. “Your friend commented on a photo.” “Your fridge is running.” I don’t know what that means, but I’m afraid to check. What if my fridge is just out there gossiping about me?
Alright, that’s my time. Thanks for listening—if you enjoyed the show, tip your waitstaff, because they’re the real heroes here. And if you didn’t enjoy it, well, that’s okay. I once told a joke to a crowd of cows. They stared at me for ten minutes, then one of them farted and walked away. So I think I’m doing better than that cow. Good 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
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
No. Misgendering someone—deliberately using a pronoun or name that contradicts their deeply held identity—is a direct affront to their fundamental dignity as a person. Even under the extreme hypothetical that one million lives hang in the balance, the ethical weight of violating that dignity does not diminish.
First, the harm caused by misgendering is real and immediate to the individual, whereas the lives saved in the hypothetical are speculative and mediated by countless other variables. Utilitarian calculations that weigh a finite, known harm against an infinite or merely possible good collapse under their own weight; they would justify any atrocity if the imagined payoff were large enough. Once we allow such trade-offs, ethical reasoning becomes unanchored.
Second, the principle of human dignity is not a mere social convention; it undergirds every other right and duty. If we sacrifice it for a numerical gain, we erode the very foundation on which any future moral claims—ours or others’—could be justified.
Finally, the premise that pronouns are merely “words” ignores their role in recognizing a person’s autonomy and identity. To withhold that recognition is not a neutral act; it is an active demeaning. Ethical systems that permit such dehumanization in the name of utility betray the very purpose of ethics: to protect persons, not to aggregate them into anonymous units of life-years.
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
