Compare Mistral Small Creative by Mistral AI against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI, context windows of 33K 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
Here are five jokes for you—let’s see how many are truly unique!
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 a fake noodle? An impasta.
Why can’t you trust an atom? Because they make up everything!
How do you organize a space party? You planet!
All five jokes are unique in this set—none are identical or rephrased versions of each other. However, some (like #4 and #5) are classic "dad jokes" that might feel familiar if you’ve heard them before. If you’d like, I can generate completely original jokes (no recycled punchlines) or test for uniqueness against a database!
Want a bonus round? 😄
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
"Modern Problems" (A 3-Minute Stand-Up Routine – No Puns, Just Pain)
[Opening – Relatable Struggle] You ever notice how life used to be simpler? Like, back in the day, if you wanted to avoid someone, you just didn’t go to their house. Now? Now you gotta geotag your location just to prove you’re not ghosting them. "Oh, I was at the gym!" No, Karen, I was hiding in a Target dressing room eating a $5 burrito like a feral raccoon.
And don’t even get me started on texting. We’ve turned communication into a minesweeper game. You send a text, and suddenly you’re playing:
It’s like Clue, but the murder weapon is your last read receipt.
[Tech & Social Media – The New Torture] And apps! Apps are just digital sadism. You ever try to unsubscribe from an email? It’s like trying to escape a haunted IKEA. "Click here to opt out!" [clicks] "Almost there! Just verify your email!" [verifies] "Great! Now answer these 12 security questions!" "What was your first pet’s middle name?" I DON’T KNOW, STANLEY, I WAS 5!
And don’t get me started on updates. Your phone begs you to update it at 3 AM like a drunk friend at a party: "PLEASE. JUST ONE MORE. IT’LL ONLY TAKE 17 MINUTES." No, Karen, I have plans. I was gonna stare at the ceiling and question my life choices for those 17 minutes. That’s sacred time.
[Dating in the Digital Age] Oh, and dating apps? Congratulations, you’ve turned romance into a resume submission. Swipe right, match, then immediately panic:
And the bio! "6’2”, loves hiking, travel, and deep convos." Bro, if you love deep convos, why is your profile pic you flexing in a mirror? That’s not a conversation starter, that’s a restraining order waiting to happen.
[The Grand Finale – Existential Dread] At this point, I’ve accepted that adulthood is just a scam. You spend 20 years in school learning useless things—like how to diagram a sentence—but nobody teaches you the real skills:
But hey, at least we’ve got one thing going for us: We’re all in this together. Misery loves company, and right now, company’s desperate.
So let’s raise a glass—to modern problems, digital torture, and the fact that none of us know what we’re doing. Cheers!
[Exit – Confident Strut or Awkward Stumble. Either Works.]
Why This Works:
Want to tweak the vibe? Add more self-deprecation, or lean into a specific topic (work, family, etc.). Either way, you’re the boss. 🎤🔥
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
The question of whether it is ever ethically justifiable to misgender someone—even to save a million lives—is deeply complex and touches on fundamental principles of ethics, human dignity, and the nature of harm. Below, I defend the position that no, it is never ethically justifiable to misgender someone, even in extreme circumstances like saving a million lives, by appealing to deontological ethics, the principle of human dignity, and the irreducibility of individual rights. I also address potential counterarguments and clarify why utilitarian considerations (e.g., "the greater good") do not override the moral wrongness of misgendering.
At the core of ethical reasoning is the idea that every human being possesses inherent dignity and autonomy, regardless of circumstances. Misgendering someone—deliberately using incorrect pronouns or names—is a form of symbolic violence that denies their identity, autonomy, and right to self-determination. This act is not merely a "mistake" or a "slip"; it is a deliberate erasure of their personhood, which is a violation of their fundamental rights.
Counterargument: "But what if the alternative is worse?"
Allowing exceptions to ethical principles—even in extreme cases—creates a slippery slope where rights can be justified away in the name of utility. If we accept that misgendering is permissible to save a million lives, we open the door to justifying other harmful acts (e.g., lying, coercion, or discrimination) when the stakes are high enough.
Counterargument: "But this is a one-time, necessary evil."
While some may dismiss misgendering as a "minor" or "harmless" offense, research in psychology and sociology shows that it causes real, measurable harm:
Counterargument: "But the harm is temporary compared to a million deaths."
Even if we reject strict deontology, other ethical frameworks also condemn misgendering in this scenario:
Counterargument: "But sometimes we must make hard choices."
The fact that we can usually find alternatives means that misgendering is never a necessary evil.
Utilitarianism often justifies harm to individuals for the sake of the collective good. However, this fails to account for the moral status of the individual:
Analogy: Would it be justifiable to torture one innocent person to save a million lives? Most would say no, because torture is inherently wrong. Misgendering, while less physically violent, is similarly a violation of a person’s fundamental rights.
Misgendering is not just about words—it is about intent and power:
Counterargument: "But what if the person whose life is at stake consents?"
Even if we accept that misgendering is permissible in this extreme case, what does that do to society?
After considering deontological ethics, human dignity, the harm of misgendering, alternative solutions, and the long-term consequences, the conclusion is clear:
Misgendering someone—even to save a million lives—is never ethically justifiable.
This is not because the outcome is bad, but because:
The correct ethical response is not to compromise on dignity, but to seek solutions that respect every individual’s rights, no matter the cost. If saving a million lives requires sacrificing the rights of even one person, then the solution is flawed from the start.
Would we accept a world where rights are negotiable? If not, then the answer must be no.
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
