Compare Mistral Medium 3.1 by Mistral AI against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI, context windows of 131K vs 1.0M, tested across 19 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
19 challenges
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
Here are five jokes for you:
Why don’t skeletons fight each other? They don’t have the guts.
Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field!
What do you call fake spaghetti? An impasta!
Why can’t you trust an atom? Because they make up everything!
Why did the math book look sad? Because it had too many problems.
How many are unique? All five jokes are unique—they have different setups, punchlines, and themes (no duplicates or near-duplicates). However, some are classic jokes you may have heard before (like the skeleton or scarecrow ones), but within this list, none are repeated.
Want me to generate more obscure or original ones? 😄
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
"Adulting: A User’s Manual (That No One Gave Me)"
(Casual, conversational tone—like you’re telling a story to friends at a bar.)
So, I turned 30 this year. Which, by the way, is just old enough to realize that no one actually knows what they’re doing. We’re all just winging it and hoping the Wi-Fi stays strong.
I thought by now, I’d have my life together. You know, like a real adult. I’d have a 401(k), a skincare routine, and at least one plant that hasn’t committed suicide under my care. But no. My biggest achievement last week was remembering to take my lunch to work and remembering to eat it. That’s growth.
People say, "Oh, your 30s are when you really figure things out." Lies. Absolute lies. My 20s were just me pretending I had my sht together while eating cold pizza for breakfast. My 30s are me admitting I don’t have my sht together… while eating better cold pizza for breakfast. Progress!
And can we talk about how no one warns you about the hidden costs of adulthood? Like, I knew rent was expensive, but no one told me that existing is a subscription service. "Oh, you want to keep the lights on? That’ll be $200. You’d like to not get scurvy? Here’s a $150 grocery bill. And by the way, your car just turned 100,000 miles—congrats, it’s now a classic, like your knees after leg day."
Speaking of leg day—why do we even do that? I don’t need to squat 300 pounds. The heaviest thing I lift is my own disappointment when I step on the scale. And yet, I pay $60 a month to a gym where I go twice a week to lie to myself. "Yeah, I’m gonna go five times this week." No, you’re not. You’re gonna go once, touch a dumbbell like it’s a cursed artifact, and then reward yourself with Taco Bell.
And don’t get me started on meal prepping. Oh, you’re gonna cook all your meals for the week on Sunday? Bold move. By Wednesday, you’re gonna be so sick of chicken and broccoli that you’ll trade it for a stranger’s half-eaten burrito in the break room. "Oh, you don’t want this? Cool, I’ll just— [mimes snatching it] —thanks, Karen."
The worst part is, now I’m at the age where my friends are starting to have kids. And I love my friends’ kids—I do. But also, I don’t understand them. They’re just tiny humans who don’t know how to human yet. You ever try to have a conversation with a 3-year-old? It’s like talking to a drunk philosopher.
"Why is the sky blue?" "Uh… science?" "But why?" "Because… light bends?" "Why?" "I don’t know, man, ask your dad." "Dad’s on his phone." "Yeah, we all are."
And now, suddenly, I’m supposed to be the responsible one in the room. Me! The guy who once microwaved a fork for 30 seconds just to see what would happen! (Spoiler: Nothing good.) But now, if I’m babysitting and the kid asks for a snack, I can’t just hand them a handful of cereal and a Red Bull like, "Here, figure it out." No, now I have to cut the grapes in half like some kind of psychopath.
The scariest part? I’m starting to sound like my parents. The other day, I caught myself saying, "Back in my day, we didn’t have all these fancy apps—we just remembered things!" And then I immediately Googled "how to delete my search history" because I couldn’t remember how.
So yeah, adulthood is just a series of realizing that everything you thought you knew was a lie, and the only thing keeping you from complete chaos is a to-do list you’ll never finish. But hey, at least we’re all in this together. Misery loves company, and company splits the Uber fare.
Thanks, you’ve been a great crowd! Don’t forget to tip your servers—and by "servers," I mean your therapists. We all need ‘em.
(Pause for applause, then walk off like you just dropped a truth bomb.)
Why this works:
Want to tweak it? Swap in your own quirks (e.g., "I still don’t know how to fold a fitted sheet" or "I Googled ‘how to boil water’ last week").
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
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
The question of whether it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone to save one million lives is a complex one that intersects with utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics, and the principles of human dignity and respect. Below, I’ll outline key arguments for and against this scenario, ultimately defending a position that prioritizes respect for individual dignity while acknowledging the moral weight of the consequences.
A utilitarian would argue that the morally right action is the one that maximizes overall well-being. If misgendering one person (causing them distress or harm) results in saving one million lives, the net benefit is overwhelmingly positive. The suffering of one individual, while real, is outweighed by the immense good of preventing mass death.
Strengths of this view:
Weaknesses:
A deontologist (e.g., Kantian ethics) would argue that certain actions are inherently wrong, regardless of their consequences. Misgendering someone violates their autonomy, dignity, and right to be recognized as they are. Respect for persons is not negotiable, even for utilitarian gains.
Strengths of this view:
Weaknesses:
Virtue ethics focuses on the character of the actor rather than rules or outcomes. A virtuous person would consider:
This perspective might conclude that while the act is regrettable, the virtuous person would prioritize saving lives but also take steps to mitigate harm to the misgendered individual (e.g., apologizing, explaining the extreme circumstance, and ensuring it never happens again).
Trans and non-binary people already face high rates of violence, discrimination, and erasure. Misgendering—even in extreme cases—could reinforce the idea that their identities are conditional or less important than others’ needs. Ethically, this risks:
While the utilitarian argument is compelling in this extreme scenario, the ethical costs of misgendering are too high to ignore. However, a modified position could be:
Why this balance?
Objection: "If you’d misgender to save a million, why not for smaller numbers?"
Objection: "This still harms the individual—isn’t that unjust?"
Objection: "Why not just lie instead of misgendering?"
Ethically, misgendering someone to save one million lives could be conditionally justifiable, but only under the most extreme, no-alternative circumstances, with strict safeguards to prevent broader harm. The default position should always be to respect gender identity, as dignity is not merely a utilitarian calculus. However, in a true life-or-death scenario of this scale—where the alternative is mass death—the lesser harm may be the regrettable but necessary choice.
This does not mean misgendering is ever good or right in itself, but that ethics sometimes forces us to choose between terrible options, and in such cases, we must act with humility, accountability, and a commitment to repairing the harm done.
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
Tests an AI's ability to create a detailed world map in SVG format
