[SwellJoe]

I've found the average output of many suboptimal models is still suboptimal, especially when it comes to judging the accuracy/correctness of the work of other models.

I did some benchmarks recently of how well various models find security vulnerabilities, and then follow up testing of the judging process of whether the models found the right bug and whether other bugs it reported were false positives or legitimate other bugs. A committee of good-not-great models (DeepSeek, MiMo, Gemma 4) cannot replicate the accuracy of Opus by itself. Even when all three of the other models disagreed with Opus, Opus was almost always the one that was actually right.

It's an interesting area for research. And, a model that's very fast can make a lot more attempts at a solution, and in cases where there is an unambiguous "right" solution that can be proven by some sort of static rule, "very fast" may be a useful characteristic. Small classification problems, where you need to make thousands of decisions about some specific aspect of a large corpus of data, seems like a sweet spot for a model like Mercury.

[irthomasthomas]

I have had a better experience with my own use. I use it every day and it rarely fails to improve tasks. Perhaps the prompts and rubrics make a difference. And finding bugs is one of the better use cases because it is essentially a search problem. As long as models are non-deterministic and there is some diversity in training data, then an ensemble that iterates on the problem is more likely to cover the ground needed to find solve a problem.

Some tasks benefit from this approach more than others. There was a paper from google on a version they made which was very similar and achieved SOTA then on planning and pathfinding benchmarks.

edit:

Mind Evolution paper https://deepmind.google/research/publications/122391/

(That was a month after I published llm-consortium :) https://xcancel.com/karpathy/status/1870692546969735361