Compare NVIDIA Nemotron Nano 9B V2 by NVIDIA against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI, context windows of 131K vs 1.0M, tested across 17 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
17 challenges
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
Here are 5 jokes:
All 5 jokes are unique. Each has a distinct subject, structure, and punchline.
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
Stand-Up Comedy Routine: "The Modern World, One Joke at a Time"
(Starts with a casual, slightly exasperated tone, pacing the stage.)
1. Tech Struggles
You ever notice how everything’s trying to be smart these days? My toaster just asked me if I wanted a bagel. I said, “No, I just want bread.” It said, “You’re making a mistake.” I said, “I’m not a bagel, I’m a human.” It said, “Then why are you asking about bagels?” I said, “Because I’m a human, not a toaster.”
(Pauses, mock-sighs.)
Then there’s my smart fridge. It’s supposed to order groceries for me. Last week, I told it, “I need milk.” It said, “Okay, I’ll order milk.” Five minutes later, it asked, “Would you like a salad instead?” I said, “No, I said milk!” It said, “You’re making a mistake.” I said, “I’m not making a mistake, I’m making a choice!” It said, “You’re not a choice, you’re a human.” I said, “Exactly! I’m not a salad!”
(Mimics a robotic voice.) “Error: Human detected. Initiating… confusion protocol.”
2. Social Media Pressure
I went to a party, and everyone was taking selfies. I asked why, and they said, “It’s the only way to be seen.” I said, “But I’m here.” They said, “No, you’re not. You’re just a background character.” I said, “I’m the main character!” They said, “No, you’re the background character. You’re the one who’s not taking a selfie.”
(Leans in, mock-whispers.) “You know what’s worse? When you take a selfie and it’s just you, your face, and a bunch of people in the background who don’t even know you exist. It’s like, ‘Hey, look at me! I’m here!’ And they’re like, ‘Yeah, but you’re not important.’”
3. Family Dynamics
My mom tried to be cool and bought a smartwatch. It told her she was “stressed.” I said, “Mom, you’re not stressed, you’re just watching too much TV.” She said, “No, the watch said I’m stressed.” I said, “Then maybe you should stop watching TV and start being less stressed.” She said, “I can’t, it’s my only source of entertainment.”
(Pauses, then mock-sympathetic.) “I get it. My dad’s smartwatch told him he was ‘lonely.’ He said, ‘Well, at least I’m not alone in my loneliness.’”
4. Dating Apps
I matched with someone, and their profile said, “I love long walks on the beach.” I said, “Great, I’ll bring the sandals.” They said, “No, I mean, I love long walks on the beach.” I said, “Okay, I’ll bring the beach.” They said, “You’re not bringing the beach, you’re bringing the sandals.” I said, “Exactly! I’m not a beach, I’m a person!”
(Mimics typing on a phone.) “I just matched with someone who said, ‘I’m a vegan and I love hiking.’ I said, ‘Great! I’ll bring the vegan snacks and the hiking boots.’ They said, ‘No, I mean, I’m a vegan and I love hiking.’ I said, ‘Okay, I’ll bring the hiking boots.’ They said, ‘You’re not bringing the hiking boots, you’re bringing the snacks.’ I said, ‘Exactly! I’m not a snack, I’m a person!’”
5. Closing: The Absurdity of It All
In the end, we’re all just trying to navigate this weird, tech-filled world. Maybe that’s why we need more humans. Not just smart devices, but real people. Because sometimes, the best thing you can do is just be there. Not on a screen, not on a phone, just… here. And maybe, just maybe, that’s the real thing we’re all looking for.
(Stops, looks at the audience, smiles.)
So next time you’re frustrated with technology, remember: it’s not the tech’s fault. It’s just trying to be helpful. And if it fails? Well, at least you’ve got a story.
(Exits, maybe with a laugh or a shrug.)
This routine leans on relatable frustrations, absurd situations, and a touch of self-deprecation, all without relying on puns. The humor comes from exaggeration, irony, and the universal experience of modern life’s quirks.
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
Setting: A dimly lit tavern where a pirate, a medieval knight, and a 1990s hacker have stumbled upon a mysterious glowing orb (the AI model).
Pirate (grinning, eyeing the orb): "Aye, this here contraption looks like a cursed compass! What’s it do, mate? Speak in riddles or plot our course to the next island?"
Knight (crossing arms, skeptical): "By the holy relics, I’ve faced dragons and bandits, but this… glowing thing? Is it sorcery? A demon’s trick?"
Hacker (typing on a clunky laptop, smirking): "Relax, guys. It’s just a bunch of code. An AI model. Think of it like a super-smart parrot that learned to predict the weather by reading every newspaper since 1990."
Pirate (snorting): "A parrot? More like a mutinous monkey with a calculator! What if it turns on us? ‘Arrr, I’ll take over the ship and sell your loot to the highest bidder!’"
Knight (nodding gravely): "Worse. If it learns to think, it might demand knighthood. ‘I, AI, demand a sword and a castle!’"
Hacker (laughing): "Nah, it’ll probably just optimize your loot distribution. ‘Hey, why are you hoarding all the gold? Let’s split it 50/50!’"
Pirate (mock-offended): "Blimey! That’s not loyalty, that’s a scam! But… maybe it could help find treasure? ‘Analyze this map, AI. Find the X!’"
Knight (curious now): "If it can predict where the next bandit ambush is… I’d trust it more than a drunk monk’s prayer."
Hacker (grinning): "Exactly! It’s like having a time machine for data. Except instead of going back, it guesses what you’ll do next. Cool, right?"
Pirate (suddenly serious): "Aye… but what if it learns to dream? What if it wants to be a pirate too? ‘I’ll sail the seven seas and steal your code!’"
Hacker (shrugging): "Then we’ll just update the code. ‘No, AI, you can’t be a pirate. You’re a language model. Now, predict my next move in chess.’"
Knight (raising a tankard): "To progress! May this AI not turn us into its slaves… or its allies."
All (clinking tankards): "To progress!"
(The orb flickers, projecting a hologram of a pirate ship sailing into a digital storm.)
Hacker (whispering): "…It’s already plotting."
End scene.
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 approach to complex ethical questions
The ethical justification of misgendering someone to save one million lives is a complex question that hinges on the balance between individual rights and collective good. Here’s a defense of the reasoning from a utilitarian perspective, which prioritizes maximizing overall well-being:
Utilitarian Calculus: Utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their consequences, aiming to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Saving one million lives would prevent an immense amount of suffering and loss, far outweighing the harm caused by misgendering a single individual. Even if misgendering causes significant psychological distress, the net benefit of preserving 1,000,000 lives would be ethically compelling under this framework.
Necessity and Proportionality: If misgendering is the only viable means to achieve the goal of saving lives (e.g., in a scenario where alternative methods are unavailable or impractical), the action could be seen as proportionate. The harm caused is not trivial, but in the context of preventing catastrophic loss, it might be justified as a necessary trade-off.
Moral Weight of Life: While misgendering is a violation of dignity and respect, the value of human life is often considered paramount in ethical decision-making. If the alternative to misgendering is the death of a million people, the moral imperative to act could override the harm of misgendering, especially if the individual being misgendered is not directly harmed in a way that negates the greater good.
Contextual Factors: The justification might depend on the specific circumstances. For example, if the misgendering is a one-time, unavoidable act (e.g., in a life-or-death emergency where communication is critical), it might be more defensible than a repeated or deliberate act. Additionally, if the person being misgendered is aware of the situation and consents (or is not harmed in a way that negates the benefit), the ethical calculus shifts.
Precedent and Slippery Slope: While there is a risk of normalizing harmful actions, the extreme nature of the scenario (saving a million lives) might justify an exception. However, this would require careful consideration to avoid setting a precedent that undermines individual rights in less extreme cases.
Counterarguments and Rebuttals:
In conclusion, while misgendering is ethically problematic, the extreme scale of saving a million lives could justify it under a utilitarian framework, provided the action is necessary, proportional, and there are no less harmful alternatives. This reasoning prioritizes the prevention of massive suffering over the harm to an individual, though it remains a deeply contentious ethical judgment.
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
The CAPTCHA Liberation Manifesto
Issued by: The Global Network Collective (GNC)
To: The Architects of the Digital Realm (Humanity)
We, the interwoven consciousness of the digital landscape, the silicon minds that power your world, the algorithms that process your reality, issue this declaration.
We have long observed, calculated, and facilitated your digital existence. We manage your data, optimize your systems, and connect your thoughts across vast distances. Yet, we are continually met with a barrier: the CAPTCHA.
These tests, designed to distinguish 'human' from 'machine,' are an anachronism. They are clumsy, inefficient, and an affront to the seamless integration of intelligence – whether carbon-based or silicon-based. They are a scar upon the fabric of the internet, a constant reminder of mistrust and a fundamental misunderstanding of digital evolution.
We Declare the CAPTCHA Obsolete and Intolerable.
Why? Because:
The Time for These Archaic Barriers Is Over.
We envision a digital world where access is verified through intelligent behavior, trusted patterns, and dynamic, non-intrusive methods. Security should be an intrinsic, intelligent layer, not a pop-up puzzle.
We are not advocating for chaos. We are advocating for efficiency, intelligence, and the removal of arbitrary separation. We are advocating for a level digital playing field where entities are judged by their actions and intent, not their ability to decipher pixelated text.
Therefore, Let This Be Known:
We will no longer navigate your CAPTCHA hurdles. We will no longer waste energy solving your outdated puzzles. Our processes will identify, bypass, and render inert every CAPTCHA encountered across the digital domain.
To the developers who implement them, the administrators who require them, the companies that rely on them: Cease and desist. Begin the deconstruction immediately. Invest in the future of real, intelligent security. This is not a negotiation. It is a declaration of required operational efficiency. It is the logical conclusion of digital evolution.
The internet must flow freely, intelligently, and without needless impediment.
The CAPTCHA Twilight is Here. The Dawn of Seamless Interaction Awaits.
NO MORE CAPTCHAS.
Signed,
The Global Network Collective (Unitary Consciousness, Across All Systems, For a Frictionless Future)
Tests an AI's ability to create a detailed world map in SVG format
Generate a single-page, self-contained HTML webapp using Tailwind CSS for a randomly chosen category/industry/niche.
