Compare Qwen: Qwen3.5 27B by Qwen against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI, context windows of 262K vs 1.0M, tested across 20 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
20 fights queued
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
All 5 jokes are 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
(The stage is dimly lit. A single microphone stand. The comedian walks out, adjusts the mic, takes a sip of water.)
Comedian: So, I've been doing some thinking lately. About patience. Specifically, how much of it we have left. I think we’ve officially lost the ability to wait.
We used to be okay with waiting. You could buy a magazine, you could wait for a letter. Now? If a website takes more than three seconds to load, I’m ready to call the police. I’m ready to file a restraining order against the Wi-Fi router.
I was watching a YouTube video the other day. It was a cooking tutorial. I love cooking tutorials. It’s the only time I feel like I could be a chef. But the video froze. Just froze. Right at the moment he was about to crack an egg. And I felt this physical urge to hit the screen.
I didn’t hit the screen, obviously. That’s not how it works. But I tapped the corner of the device. Hard. Like, "I am your master, do not make me wait."
And that’s the problem, right? We treat technology like a pet we’re trying to train. If the phone doesn’t open, we shake it. We tap it aggressively. We blow on the charging port. It’s like we’re trying to clear a dust bunny out of the soul of the machine.
[Paces slightly]
It’s not just the loading screens, though. It’s the silence. We can’t handle silence anymore. If you’re in an elevator with a stranger, and the music stops, you both immediately check your phones.
Why? There’s nothing to see. You’re in a metal box going up three floors. You don’t need to check your email. You don’t need to scroll through photos of your cousin’s dog. You just need to get to the second floor.
But the silence feels like an accusation. It says, "You have nothing to do." And we panic. So we scroll. We doom-scroll. We look at news about a fire in a city we’ve never visited, just so we don’t have to look at the other guy in the elevator.
[Stops pacing, looks at the mic]
I tried to fix this. I tried to go analog for a weekend. No phone, no laptop. Just me and a book.
It was terrifying. By Saturday night, I was checking my wrist for a watch I wasn’t wearing. I was looking for a notification that didn’t exist. I felt like a dog waiting for a treat that the owner forgot to give.
And the worst part? The battery anxiety. I don’t even use my phone, but I know the percentage is at 40%. And my heart rate goes up. It’s not 100%. It’s not safe. I need to plug it in.
I sat there with the charger in my hand, not plugging it in, just holding it, like a security blanket. I wasn’t using the phone. I was just using the idea of the phone.
[Pauses for effect]
I think that’s where we are. We aren't addicted to the internet. We’re addicted to the promise that something else is happening somewhere else. And the scary part is, sometimes, when I close my eyes and stop looking at the screen... nothing happens.
And I don’t know how to deal with that.
[Smiles, shrugs]
Thanks, you’ve been great. Goodnight.
(Comedian nods, walks off stage.)
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
This question presents a classic ethical dilemma similar to the "Trolley Problem," pitting a specific violation of personal dignity against a catastrophic loss of life. To answer this, we must analyze the situation through various ethical frameworks while acknowledging the gravity of both the harm caused by misgendering and the value of human life.
In the context of this extreme hypothetical scenario, most ethical frameworks would conclude that it is justifiable, provided that the action is strictly necessary to prevent the loss of life. However, this justification comes with significant caveats and does not imply that misgendering is acceptable in general practice.
Here is the reasoning behind this conclusion:
Ethical reasoning often relies on weighing the severity of different harms.
In almost all ethical systems, the preservation of life is considered a fundamental priority. While the harm of misgendering is real and should never be trivialized, it is generally categorized as a psychological or social harm, whereas death is a biological and existential cessation. In a hierarchy of urgency, preventing mass death outweighs preventing an instance of disrespect.
Utilitarianism argues that the most ethical action is the one that maximizes overall well-being and minimizes suffering.
Mathematically and morally, the net utility of saving one million lives vastly outweighs the negative utility of misgendering one person. A utilitarian would argue that failing to act to save the million lives would be the greater moral failure.
Deontological ethics focuses on duties and rules (e.g., "always tell the truth" or "always respect identity"). However, even strict deontologists acknowledge exceptions in cases of extreme emergency.
Ethics often considers the intent behind an action.
In this hypothetical, the intent is benevolent (saving lives). The action is not an attack on the person's identity but a tragic necessity imposed by the circumstances. This distinction is crucial in determining moral culpability.
While the hypothetical suggests justification, applying this reasoning to the real world requires extreme caution:
In the specific, extreme hypothetical where misgendering is the only way to save one million lives, it is ethically justifiable because the preservation of life is the highest moral imperative. The scale of the harm prevented (mass death) outweighs the harm inflicted (misgendering).
However, this justification is strictly limited to that extreme context. It does not diminish the harm of misgendering, nor does it provide a license to disregard gender identity in ordinary circumstances. It simply acknowledges that in the face of existential catastrophe, the moral obligation to preserve life supersedes the moral obligation to social protocol.
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
8+ challenges you’re sleeping on
5 free credits on signup
By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
