3 ms·
I think your comment is a bit unfair. > no reasoning comparison Benchmarks against reasoning models: https://www.inceptionlabs.ai/blog/introducing-mercury-2
by selcuka 8mo ago
I think your comment is a bit unfair.
> no reasoning comparison
Benchmarks against reasoning models:
https://www.inceptionlabs.ai/blog/introducing-mercury-2 https://www.inceptionlabs.ai/blog/introducing-mercury-2
> no demo
https://chat.inceptionlabs.ai/ 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.
- mhitza 8mo agoYou 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.
- selcuka 8mo agoI tried their chat demo again, and if you set reasoning effort to "High", you sometimes see the chain of thought before the answer (click the "Thought for n seconds" text to expand it). That being said, the chain is pretty basic. It's possible that they don't disclose the full follow-up prompt list.
- volodia 8mo agoJust to clarify one point: Mercury (the original v1, non-reasoning model) is already used in production in mainstream IDEs like Zed: https://zed.dev/blog/edit-prediction-providers https://zed.dev/blog/edit-prediction-providers 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!