Long-running agents deserve better inference.
vs

TypeSafe AI vs Inception

TypeSafe AI returns typed decisions with calibrated confidence. Inception generates text fast with diffusion models.

By The Subconscious Team · Updated

TypeSafe AI vs Inception: key differences

TypeSafe's Jev evaluates every option in one pass and returns a typed answer plus calibrated probabilities in 70 to 500ms, but generates no text or code and is in early access. Inception sells closed Mercury diffusion models that refine a block of tokens in parallel instead of one at a time. Mercury 2.5 is a reasoning model with tool use and 260K context at $0.20 in and $0.75 out per million tokens; Inception reports over 1,100 tokens per second, and Artificial Analysis measures about 640.

They pair well. Jev handles routing, scoring and guardrail checks inside a workflow. Mercury handles the parts that need generated text quickly.

What TypeSafe AI and Inception do

TypeSafe AI

TypeSafe AI builds decision models instead of text generators. Founder Diogo Almeida co-invented RLHF and InstructGPT at OpenAI and later worked at Google Brain; his co-founders are Erik Gafni and Sasha Sheng. After two years in stealth the company launched on September 15, 2026 with a $40M seed round led by DCVC and released its first System One Model, Jev, in early access. The name nods to Kahneman's fast System 1 thinking, and the model is built for machines to call, not people to chat with.

Example models: Jev, jev-1.13

Full TypeSafe AI profile

Inception

Inception builds diffusion large language models (dLLMs). Every other LLM on this list generates text one token at a time; Inception's Mercury models start from a rough draft of a whole block and refine it over a few passes, producing many tokens in parallel. That ties speed less to output length and lets the models run fast on ordinary NVIDIA GPUs rather than custom chips. The company was founded by professors from Stanford, UCLA and Cornell behind core work on diffusion, Flash Attention and DPO, and is led by Stanford's Stefano Ermon. It raised a $50M seed in November 2025 led by Menlo Ventures, with Mayfield, M12, NVentures, Snowflake and Databricks, plus Andrew Ng and Andrej Karpathy as angels.

Example models: Mercury 2.5, Mercury 2

Full Inception profile

Should you choose TypeSafe AI or Inception?

TypeSafe AI

Choose TypeSafe AI for

  • Typed decisions in 70 to 500ms
  • Calibrated confidence for routing and guardrails
  • Outputs that always match a schema

Inception

Choose Inception for

  • Fast text and code generation
  • Reasoning with tool use and 260K context
  • Buying through AWS Bedrock or Azure

TypeSafe AI vs Inception at a glance

AttributeTypeSafe AIInception
Model accessDecision modelsClosed weights (Mercury dLLMs)
Flagship modelsJev, jev-1.13Mercury 2.5, Mercury 2
Speed70–500ms per call1,100+ tok/s (vendor); ~640 measured
Price$0.042 per 1M input tokens; output free$0.20 in, $0.75 out (Mercury 2.5)
CustomizationUnknownFine-tuning on request
DeploymentEarly-access API, also via LiteLLMServerless API, Bedrock, Azure, private
Long context32K260K

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between TypeSafe AI and Inception?

TypeSafe AI returns typed decisions with calibrated confidence. Inception generates text fast with diffusion models.

When should I choose TypeSafe AI over Inception?

Typed decisions in 70 to 500ms; Calibrated confidence for routing and guardrails; Outputs that always match a schema.

When should I choose Inception over TypeSafe AI?

Fast text and code generation; Reasoning with tool use and 260K context; Buying through AWS Bedrock or Azure.

Is TypeSafe AI or Inception cheaper?

TypeSafe AI: $0.042 per 1M input tokens; output free. Inception: $0.20 in, $0.75 out (Mercury 2.5). The cheaper choice depends on the model and workload.

Which has more context, TypeSafe AI or Inception?

TypeSafe AI: 32K. Inception: 260K.

Related comparisons

Running long-horizon agents?

If your agents run past 200K tokens, compare both against Subconscious. Our inference stack treats a long-horizon trace as the primary workload, so speed, cost, and accuracy hold up deep into the trace.