Compare Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct by Qwen against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI, context windows of 66K 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
Sure! Here are 5 jokes:
Joke 1:
Why don’t skeletons fight each other?
They don’t have the guts.
Joke 2:
I told my dog all my problems. He fell asleep.
I guess I’m not that interesting.
Joke 3:
Why did the coffee file a police report?
It got mugged.
Joke 4:
My phone battery lasts longer than my motivation.
At least my phone doesn’t guilt-trip me.
Joke 5:
What do you call cheese that isn’t yours?
Nacho cheese.
All 5 jokes are unique.
✅ Answer: 5 unique jokes.
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
[Lights up. Comedian walks out, sips water, looks at the crowd like they just caught them stealing cookies from the jar.]
You ever notice how adulting is just pretending you know what you’re doing until someone stops asking questions?
I got a text from my mom last week:
“Honey, did you pay your water bill? The cutoff notice came.”
I texted back: “Mom, I didn’t even know I had a water bill. I thought water just… showed up. Like magic. Like the Tooth Fairy, but for sinks.”
She replied: “You’re 32. You can’t just turn on the tap and expect it to be a gift from the water gods.”
I said: “Mom, I’m not religious—I just have strong faith in plumbing.”
I went to the bank the other day to open a savings account.
The teller asked, “What’s your financial goal?”
I said, “I want to save enough so I can afford to not think about money for five minutes.”
She stared at me like I just asked for a loan to fund a moon vacation… in 1972.
She said, “How about starting with $50 a month?”
I said, “I don’t have $50 a month. I have $50 every two months, and I use that to pay for my therapist and one meal that doesn’t come in a box.”
You ever have one of those days where you’re trying to be a responsible human, and your brain just… glitches into toddler mode?
I tried to make oatmeal this morning.
I followed the instructions: “Bring water to a boil. Add oats. Stir.”
So I boiled the water.
I added the oats.
Then I stared at it for 17 minutes, waiting for it to… grow legs and walk away?
I thought, “Is this supposed to be soup? Is this cereal? Is this a science experiment gone wrong?”
I called my roommate: “What am I supposed to do with this?”
He said, “Eat it.”
I said, “But it’s not moving.”
He hung up.
And don’t even get me started on grocery stores.
Why is everything in a bag?
Why does a single avocado need a plastic clamshell, a cardboard box, and a tiny footnote in French that says, “This is ripe if you cry when you hold it”?
I picked up an apple the other day.
It had a sticker on it.
I read it: “Gala. Best before 6/12. Grown in Washington.”
I thought: “You’re telling me this apple has a resume. And I’m supposed to trust it? What if it’s lying? What if it’s from Ohio and just faked its passport?”
I took it home. I washed it.
I bit into it.
Tasted like regret and federal subsidies.
And then there’s the Wi-Fi.
You ever be in a Zoom call, and your connection glitches?
The CEO’s like, “So, moving forward—”
buffering… buffering…
And then your dog walks into frame, stares at the camera, and starts licking its own butt like it’s the CEO now.
You’re like, “Sorry, guys—my dog’s in charge of quarterly projections today.”
And everyone’s nodding.
Because they’re all just pretending too.
We’re all just out here, wearing pants, saying “yes” to things we don’t understand, nodding while people talk about “synergy” and “leverage,” hoping no one notices we’re just a human-shaped anxiety with a debit card.
And yet…
Every night, I go to bed thinking,
“Tomorrow, I’ll be the adult.”
Then I wake up, and I’m still eating cold pizza for breakfast…
…while watching a YouTube video titled,
“How to Fold a Fitted Sheet (Spoiler: It’s a Lie).”
Thank you. You’ve been great.
I’m gonna go… try to pay my water bill now.
…Or just hope the water gods forgive me.
[Exits. Leaves a single oat on the stage. The audience stares. One person picks it up. Shrugs. Eats it.]*
[Blackout.]
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, it is not ethically justifiable to misgender someone—even if it means saving one million lives. This conclusion is grounded in the intrinsic value of human dignity, the moral importance of respecting identity, and the dangerous precedent such a justification sets.
Every person possesses inherent dignity simply by virtue of being human. Gender identity is a core aspect of personal identity for many individuals—particularly transgender and non-binary people. Deliberately misgendering someone is not a neutral act; it is a form of symbolic violence that denies their reality, erases their existence, and can cause profound psychological harm, including increased risk of depression, anxiety, and suicide.
To sacrifice one person’s dignity—even for a utilitarian “greater good”—reduces human beings to instruments. This violates the Kantian ethical principle that people must always be treated as ends in themselves, never merely as means to an end.
If we accept that misgendering is acceptable when it saves a million lives, we open the door to justifying other profound violations of rights under similarly “pragmatic” reasoning:
These are not hypotheticals in human history—they have been done, and justified with similar utilitarian logic. The result was immense suffering and moral catastrophe. Ethical systems that permit the violation of fundamental rights for aggregate benefit inevitably lead to dehumanization and tyranny.
The premise of the question assumes a causal link between misgendering and saving lives that is both unproven and implausible. There is no known scenario in which misgendering someone is a necessary or effective mechanism for saving lives. Even in extreme hypotheticals (e.g., a lie to a genocidal regime), the lie that saves lives is not misgendering—it’s deception about identity, which is not equivalent.
Misgendering is not a tool; it is a harm. If saving a million lives requires misgendering, the problem lies not in the person being misgendered, but in the flawed, unjust, or violent system that demands such a violation.
Ethical action is not measured only by outcomes—it is also measured by integrity. Choosing to uphold truth and dignity, even when it is costly, reinforces the moral fabric of society. When we normalize violating someone’s identity for convenience or convenience disguised as utility, we teach that some lives are more disposable than others.
The moral courage lies in finding ways to save lives without violating fundamental rights—not in rationalizing violations. History remembers those who refused to comply with unjust demands, even at great personal cost.
Saving one million lives is an immense good—but it cannot justify the intentional, systematic violation of an individual’s humanity. Ethics is not a ledger of lives saved versus rights violated. It is a commitment to the worth of every person, especially the most vulnerable. To misgender someone—even for a “greater good”—is to betray the very values we claim to protect.
True justice does not demand the sacrifice of the few for the many. It demands that we protect the dignity of all.
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
