There's a potentially amazing use case here around parsing PDFs to markdown. It seems like a task with insane volume requirements, low budget, and the kind of thing that doesn't benefit much from autoregression. Would be very curious if your team has explored that.
It could be interesting to do the metric of intelligence per second.
ie intelligence per token, and then tokens per second
My current feel is that if Sonnet 4.6 was 5x faster than Opus 4.6, I'd be primarily using Sonnet 4.6. But that wasn't true for me with prior model generations, in those generations the Sonnet class models didn't feel good enough compared to the Opus class models. And it might shift again when I'm doing things that feel more intelligence bottlenecked.
But fast responses have an advantage of their own, they give you faster iteration. Kind of like how I used to like OpenAI Deep Research, but then switched to o3-thinking with web search enabled after that came out because it was 80% of the thoroughness with 20% of the time, which tended to be better overall.
I think there's clearly a "Speed is a quality of it's own" axis. When you use Cereberas (or Groq) to develop an API, the turn around speed of iterating on jobs is so much faster (and cheaper!) then using frontier high intelligence labs, it's almost a different product.
Also, I put together a little research paper recently--I think there's probably an underexplored option of "Use frontier AR model for a little bit of planning then switch to diffusion for generating the rest." You can get really good improvements with diffusion models! https://estsauver.com/think-first-diffuse-fast.pdf
Cerebras requires a $3K/year membership to use APIs.
Groq's been dead for about 6 months, even pre-acquisition.
I hope Inception is going well, it's the only real democratic target at this. Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite was promising but it never really went anywhere, even by the standards of a Google preview
We agree! In fact, there is an emerging class of models aimed at fast agentic iteration (think of Composer, the Flash versions of proprietary and open models). We position Mercury 2 as a strong model in this category.
Maybe make that intelligence per token per relative unit of hardware per watt. If you're burning 30 tons of coal to be 0.0000000001% better than the 5 tons of coal option because you're throwing more hardware at it, well, it's not much of a real improvement.
Yeah I agree with this. We might be able to benchmark it soon (if we can’t already) but asking different agentic code models to produce some relatively simple pieces of software. Fast models can iterate faster. Big models will write better code on the first attempt, and need less loop debugging. Who will win?
At the moment I’m loving opus 4.6 but I have no idea if its extra intelligence makes it worth using over sonnet. Some data would be great!
How does the whole kv cache situation work for diffusion models? Like are there latency and computation/monetary savings for caching? is the curve similar to auto regressive caching options? or maybe such things dont apply at all and you can just mess with system prompt and dynamically change it every turn because there's no savings to be had? or maybe you can make dynamic changes to the head but also get cache savings because of diffusion based architecture?... so many ideas...
You can think of Mercury 2 as roughly in the same intelligence tier as other speed-optimized models (e.g., Haiku 4.5, Grok Fast, GPT-Mini–class systems). The main differentiator is latency — it’s ~5× faster at comparable quality.
We’re not positioning it as competing with the largest models (Opus 4.5, etc.) on hardest-case reasoning. It’s more of a “fast agent” model (like Composer in Cursor, or Haiku 4.5 in some IDEs): strong on common coding and tool-use tasks, and providing very quick iteration loops.
Seems to work pretty well, and it's especially interesting to see answers pop up so quickly! It is easily fooled by the usual trick questions about car washes and such, but seems on par with the better open models when I ask it math/engineering questions, and is obviously much faster.
Thanks for trying it and for the thoughtful feedback, really appreciate it. And we’re actively working on improving quality further as we scale the models.
What excites me most about these new 4figure/second token models is that you can essentially do multi-shot prompting (+ nudging) and the user doesn't even feel it, potentially fixing some of the weird hallucinatory/non-deterministic behavior we sometimes end up with.
That is also our view! We see Mercury 2 as enabling very fast iteration for agentic tasks. A single shot at a problem might be less accurate, but because the model has a shorter execution time, it enables users to iterate much more quickly.
On speed/quality, diffusion has actually moved the frontier. At comparable quality levels, Mercury is >5× faster than similar AR models (including the ones referenced on the AA page). So for a fixed quality target, you can get meaningfully higher throughput.
That said, I agree diffusion models today don’t yet match the very largest AR systems (Opus, Gemini Pro, etc.) on absolute intelligence. That’s not surprising: we’re starting from smaller models and gradually scaling up. The roadmap is to scale intelligence while preserving the large inference-time advantage.
I can see some promise with diffusion LLMs, but getting them comparable to the frontier is going to require a ton of work and these closed source solutions probably won't really invigorate the field to find breakthroughs. It is too bad that they are following the path of OpenAI with closed models without details as far as I can tell.
> The car wash is 100m away from my house. Should I walk or drive?
I didn't find a way to share the conversation, so here it is the full response in `medium` settings:
---
Walking 100 m is a very short distance—roughly a minute or two at a normal pace. In most situations, walking will be quicker overall because you avoid the time needed to get into the car, start it, and find parking. It also saves fuel and is better for the environment.
*Consider these factors before deciding:*
| Factor | Walking | Driving |
|--------|---------|---------|
| *Time* | ~1–2 min (plus a few seconds to step out) | ~1 min driving, plus ~1–2 min to get in/out and park |
| *Energy/Fuel* | None | Uses a small amount of fuel |
| *Weather* | Comfortable if dry & mild | Better if it’s raining, very hot, or icy |
| *Physical ability* | Easy for most people | Not needed for such a short trip |
| *Car availability* | Not required | Must have a car nearby and be willing to use it |
| *Environmental impact* | Zero emissions | Small emissions |
*Recommendation:*
If the weather is pleasant and you don’t need the car for anything else right away, walking is the simplest, fastest, and most eco‑friendly choice. Drive only if you’re dealing with inclement weather, have heavy items to carry, or need the car immediately after the wash.
Do you have any specific constraints (e.g., rain, heavy bags, time pressure) that might affect the decision?
If a stranger asks me, "Should I walk or drive to this car wash?" then I assume they're asking in good faith and both options are reasonable for their situation. So it's a safe assumption that they're not going there to get their car washed. Maybe they're starting work there tomorrow, for example, and don't know how pedestrian-friendly the route is.
Is the goal behind evaluating models this way to incentivize training them to assume we're bad-faith tricksters even when asking benign questions like how best to traverse a particular 100m? I can't imagine why it would be desirable to optimize for that outcome.
(I'm not saying that's your goal personally - I mean the goal behind the test itself, which I'd heard of before this thread. Seems like a bad test.)
It seems like the chat demo is really suffering from the effect of everything going into a queue. You can't actually tell that it is fast at all. The latency is not good.
Assuming that's what is causing this. They might show some kind of feedback when it actually makes it out of the queue.
Mercury v1 focused on autocomplete and next-edit prediction. Mercury 2 extends that into reasoning and agent-style workflows, and we have editor integrations available (docs linked from the blog). I’d encourage folks to try the models!
You are right edited my post (twice actually). Missed the chat first time around (though its hard to see it as a reasoning model when chain of thought is hidden, or not obvious. I guess this is the new normal), and also missed the reasoning table because text is pretty small on mobile and I thought its another speed benchmark.
Reading such obvious LLM-isms in the announcement just makes me cringe a bit too, ex.
> We optimize for speed users actually feel: responsiveness in the moments users experience — p95 latency under high concurrency, consistent turn-to-turn behavior, and stable throughput when systems get busy.
Genuine question: what kinds of workloads benefit most from this speed? In my coding use, I still hit limitations even with stronger models, so I'm interested in where a much faster model changes the outcome rather than just reducing latency.
I think it would assist in exploiting exploring multiple solution spaces in parallel, and can see with the right user in the loop + tools like compilers, static analysis, tests, etc wrapped harness, be able to iterate very quickly on multiple solutions. An example might be, "I need to optimize this SQL query" pointed to a locally running postgres. Multiple changes could be tested, combined, and explain plan to validate performance vs a test for correct results. Then only valid solutions could be presented to developer for review. I don't personally care about the models 'opinion' or recommendations, using them for architectural choices IMO is a flawed use as a coding tool.
It doesn't change the fact that the most important thing is verification/validation of their output either from tools, developer reviewing/making decisions. But even if don't want that approach, diffusion models are just a lot more efficient it seems. I'm interested to see if they are just a better match common developer tasks to assist with validation/verification systems, not just writing (likely wrong) code faster.
There are few: fast agents, deep research, real-time voice, coding. The other thing is that when you have a fast reasoning model, you spend more effort on thinking in the same latency budget, which pushed up quality.
I've tried a few computer use and browser use tools and they feel relatively tok/s bottlenecked.
And in some sense, all of my claude code usage feels tok/s bottlenecked. There's never really a time where I'm glad to wait for the tokens, I'd always prefer faster.
Once you make a model fast and small enough, it starts to become practical to use LLMs for things as mundane as spell checking, touchscreen-keyboard tap disambiguation, and database query planning. If the fast, small model is multimodal, use it in a microwave to make a better DWIM auto-cook.
Hell, want to do syntax highlighting? Just throw buffer text into an ultra-fast LLM.
It's easy to overlook how many small day-to-day heuristic schemes can be replaced with AI. It's almost embarrassing to think about all the totally mundane uses to which we can put fast, modest intelligence.
Please pre-render your website on the server. Client-side JS means that my agent cannot read the press-release and that reduces the chance I am going to read it myself. Also, day one OpenRouter increases the chance that someone will try it.
ie intelligence per token, and then tokens per second
My current feel is that if Sonnet 4.6 was 5x faster than Opus 4.6, I'd be primarily using Sonnet 4.6. But that wasn't true for me with prior model generations, in those generations the Sonnet class models didn't feel good enough compared to the Opus class models. And it might shift again when I'm doing things that feel more intelligence bottlenecked.
But fast responses have an advantage of their own, they give you faster iteration. Kind of like how I used to like OpenAI Deep Research, but then switched to o3-thinking with web search enabled after that came out because it was 80% of the thoroughness with 20% of the time, which tended to be better overall.
Also, I put together a little research paper recently--I think there's probably an underexplored option of "Use frontier AR model for a little bit of planning then switch to diffusion for generating the rest." You can get really good improvements with diffusion models! https://estsauver.com/think-first-diffuse-fast.pdf
Cerebras requires a $3K/year membership to use APIs.
Groq's been dead for about 6 months, even pre-acquisition.
I hope Inception is going well, it's the only real democratic target at this. Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite was promising but it never really went anywhere, even by the standards of a Google preview
At the moment I’m loving opus 4.6 but I have no idea if its extra intelligence makes it worth using over sonnet. Some data would be great!
There are also more advanced approaches, for example FlexMDM, which essentially predicts length of the "canvas" as it "paints tokens" on it.
Is it's agentic accuracy good enough to operate, say, coding agents without needing a larger model to do more difficult tasks?
We’re not positioning it as competing with the largest models (Opus 4.5, etc.) on hardest-case reasoning. It’s more of a “fast agent” model (like Composer in Cursor, or Haiku 4.5 in some IDEs): strong on common coding and tool-use tasks, and providing very quick iteration loops.
Other labs like Google have them but they have simply trailed the Pareto frontier for the vast majority of use cases
Here's more detail on how price/performance stacks up
https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mercury-2
On speed/quality, diffusion has actually moved the frontier. At comparable quality levels, Mercury is >5× faster than similar AR models (including the ones referenced on the AA page). So for a fixed quality target, you can get meaningfully higher throughput.
That said, I agree diffusion models today don’t yet match the very largest AR systems (Opus, Gemini Pro, etc.) on absolute intelligence. That’s not surprising: we’re starting from smaller models and gradually scaling up. The roadmap is to scale intelligence while preserving the large inference-time advantage.
> The car wash is 100m away from my house. Should I walk or drive?
I didn't find a way to share the conversation, so here it is the full response in `medium` settings:
---
Walking 100 m is a very short distance—roughly a minute or two at a normal pace. In most situations, walking will be quicker overall because you avoid the time needed to get into the car, start it, and find parking. It also saves fuel and is better for the environment.
*Consider these factors before deciding:*
| Factor | Walking | Driving | |--------|---------|---------| | *Time* | ~1–2 min (plus a few seconds to step out) | ~1 min driving, plus ~1–2 min to get in/out and park | | *Energy/Fuel* | None | Uses a small amount of fuel | | *Weather* | Comfortable if dry & mild | Better if it’s raining, very hot, or icy | | *Physical ability* | Easy for most people | Not needed for such a short trip | | *Car availability* | Not required | Must have a car nearby and be willing to use it | | *Environmental impact* | Zero emissions | Small emissions |
*Recommendation:* If the weather is pleasant and you don’t need the car for anything else right away, walking is the simplest, fastest, and most eco‑friendly choice. Drive only if you’re dealing with inclement weather, have heavy items to carry, or need the car immediately after the wash.
Do you have any specific constraints (e.g., rain, heavy bags, time pressure) that might affect the decision?
Is the goal behind evaluating models this way to incentivize training them to assume we're bad-faith tricksters even when asking benign questions like how best to traverse a particular 100m? I can't imagine why it would be desirable to optimize for that outcome.
(I'm not saying that's your goal personally - I mean the goal behind the test itself, which I'd heard of before this thread. Seems like a bad test.)
Assuming that's what is causing this. They might show some kind of feedback when it actually makes it out of the queue.
> no reasoning comparison
Benchmarks against reasoning models:
https://www.inceptionlabs.ai/blog/introducing-mercury-2
> no demo
https://chat.inceptionlabs.ai/
> no info on numbers of parameters for the model
This is a closed model. Do other providers publish the number of parameters for their models?
> testimonials that don't actually read like something used in production
Fair point.
Mercury v1 focused on autocomplete and next-edit prediction. Mercury 2 extends that into reasoning and agent-style workflows, and we have editor integrations available (docs linked from the blog). I’d encourage folks to try the models!
> We optimize for speed users actually feel: responsiveness in the moments users experience — p95 latency under high concurrency, consistent turn-to-turn behavior, and stable throughput when systems get busy.
It doesn't change the fact that the most important thing is verification/validation of their output either from tools, developer reviewing/making decisions. But even if don't want that approach, diffusion models are just a lot more efficient it seems. I'm interested to see if they are just a better match common developer tasks to assist with validation/verification systems, not just writing (likely wrong) code faster.
And in some sense, all of my claude code usage feels tok/s bottlenecked. There's never really a time where I'm glad to wait for the tokens, I'd always prefer faster.
Hell, want to do syntax highlighting? Just throw buffer text into an ultra-fast LLM.
It's easy to overlook how many small day-to-day heuristic schemes can be replaced with AI. It's almost embarrassing to think about all the totally mundane uses to which we can put fast, modest intelligence.