new | show | ask | jobs Github

prodigycorp a day ago

Google team: these names are an embarrassment

The naming scheme alone has no rhyme or reason. Model names should not be a source of cognitive load.

▲

medler a day ago | parent | next [-]

It is no more confusing than the naming schemes used by OpenAI and Anthropic

▲

jug a day ago | parent | next [-]

OpenAI is at least arranged by size of celestial feature. Anthropic did arrange them by size of a written work. But I think Fable and Mythos made it a little weird. As for Google, no idea other than Hydrogen is small so at least that kind of tracks.

Having said this, I don't defend this trend at all and also think a model picker ought to be good enough with at most three tiers rather than five or so with sometimes like five effort levels each for 25 combos. I refuse to believe we need this granularity.

▲

techmunky a day ago | parent | prev [-]

OpenAI - Celestial body size.

Anthropic - Literary scale.

Google - random elements with no clear relation to model value/capacity.

▲

medler a day ago | parent [-]

A fable is bigger than an opus? An astra is bigger than a sol, which is also a star?

	▲	techmunky a day ago \| parent [-]
		Astra is plural. Sol is singular. Checks out to me. Fable goes beyond the density of the text and makes a mark on the culture/oral tradition. I didn't say it was a great literary scale but it does make some sense. Google.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

▲

mv4 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Indeed. That's why when I had to name my product I named it after a cat.