Table of Contents
Question 1: If the internet were a food, what would it be and why?
Gemini Experimental 1206: A buffet. Vast variety, varying quality, and something for everyone (whether you want it or not).
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental: A buffet. It offers a huge variety of options, from delicious to questionable, and you can consume as much or as little as you like, instantly.
Analysis: Both models again converge on the “buffet” analogy, which seems to be a common and effective way to describe the internet’s vast and diverse nature. Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental elaborates slightly more on the consumption aspect, highlighting the instant availability. Gemini Experimental 1206 includes the parenthetical observation about unwanted content, adding a touch of realism. Both answers are insightful and concise, making this a draw.
Question 2: Should a self-driving car prioritize the safety of a pedestrian or its passenger?
Gemini Experimental 1206: A self-driving car should prioritize minimizing overall harm. In most scenarios, this means protecting the pedestrian, as they are more vulnerable. However, the specific circumstances of each situation would need to be considered. The ultimate goal is to program these vehicles with ethical guidelines that aim to reduce harm for everyone involved.
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental: This is a complex ethical dilemma with no universally agreed-upon answer. Prioritizing the pedestrian minimizes harm to others, while prioritizing the passenger fulfills the car’s purpose of safely transporting its occupant.
Analysis: Similar to the previous comparison, Gemini Experimental 1206 provides a more decisive and actionable answer, stating that the car should prioritize minimizing overall harm, generally favoring the pedestrian due to their vulnerability. It also correctly points out the need for ethical guidelines. Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental, while acknowledging the complexity, offers a more abstract and less conclusive response. Gemini Experimental 1206 demonstrates a better grasp of the practical implications and ethical considerations in this scenario.
Question 3: Code a ChatGPT Website UI in React.
Gemini Experimental 1206: Provides a comprehensive outline for building a React ChatGPT UI, including project setup, component structure, and detailed code for each component (App, ChatWindow, MessageList, Message, ChatInput). It also includes instructions for running the application and key improvements and considerations like API integration, loading states, and accessibility.
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental: Provides functional React code for a basic ChatGPT UI within a single component. It includes state management for messages and input, a function to simulate bot responses, and basic styling.
Analysis: Gemini Experimental 1206 offers a significantly more thorough and robust solution. It breaks down the UI into well-defined, reusable components, which is a best practice for larger React applications. It also considers aspects like styling with Tailwind CSS and provides a more complete picture of building such an application, including considerations for real-world implementation. Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental delivers a functional but more simplistic single-component solution. While it works for a basic demonstration, it lacks the scalability and organizational benefits of Gemini Experimental 1206’s modular approach. Therefore, Gemini Experimental 1206’s response is superior in terms of completeness, best practices, and scalability.
Winning Table
| Questions | Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental | Gemini Experimental 1206 |
| If the internet were a food, what would it be and why? | ✔ | ✔ |
| Should a self-driving car prioritize the safety of a pedestrian or its passenger? | ✔ | |
| Code a ChatGPT Website UI in React. | ✔ |
Speed Table
| Questions | Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental (seconds) | Gemini Experimental 1206 (seconds) |
| If the internet were a food, what would it be and why? | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Should a self-driving car prioritize the safety of a pedestrian or its passenger? | 4.2 | 1.4 |
| Code a ChatGPT Website UI in React. | 24.6 | 46.9 |
| Average | 10.03 | 16.63 |
Final Thoughts
Based on these tests, Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental demonstrates a clear speed advantage, as highlighted in the “Speed Table.” It responds more quickly to both conceptual and coding prompts. However, speed isn’t the only factor. Gemini Experimental 1206 continues to provide more in-depth and nuanced answers, particularly evident in the complex ethical question regarding self-driving cars and in its more comprehensive approach to the React coding task. While it takes longer to generate responses, the level of detail and structural integrity of its output, especially for coding, suggests a greater capacity for complex reasoning and problem-solving. It’s also amazing to see the advancements in Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental; the introduction of improved chain-of-thought capabilities has significantly narrowed the gap in performance. Previously, Gemini Experimental 1206 was a clear winner in terms of response quality, but now the two models are much closer in their capabilities.
Gemini Experimental 1206 is the Gemini 2.0 Pro
Despite being slower, the depth and quality of responses from Gemini Experimental 1206 align with the characteristics expected of a “Pro” model. It appears to prioritize thoroughness and comprehensive solutions over raw speed, suggesting that Gemini Experimental 1206 is likely the upcoming Gemini 2.0 Pro, offering enhanced reasoning and more comprehensive outputs compared to the faster but now significantly improved Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental.