| ▲ | medler 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
It is no more confusing than the naming schemes used by OpenAI and Anthropic | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jug 2 days 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 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
OpenAI - Celestial body size. Anthropic - Literary scale. Google - random elements with no clear relation to model value/capacity. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||