| ▲ | Al-Khwarizmi 6 hours ago |
| I wouldn't call that a nitpick, it's a major annoyance. Version numbers become useless with that kind of policy. |
|
| ▲ | kridsdale1 6 hours ago | parent [-] |
| The numbers are branding. The appear to be an indicator of a given year long training run. New “versions” are tweaks of the same base. |
| |
| ▲ | tempest_ 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure and that is why you can call it 2.5.<whatever> They just don't want to be pinned down because the shifting sands are useful for the time when the LLM starts to get injected with ads or paid influence. | |
| ▲ | sally_glance 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I wish they would actually explain it like that somewhere. Or publish the internal version numbers they must certainly be using to ensure a proper development process. |
|
