I'm surprised no one at Google realized that both OpenAI and Anthropic's naming schemes follow a fairly clear progression and that they should do something similar to reduce confusion. I would have assumed the opposite given that Argon has a higher periodic number
replyLots of commenters here are confused by Luna, Terra, and Sol still haha.
replyIt isn't obvious that a fable is "better" than an opus either.
replyOriginally the model tier that was better than Opus was called Mythos, which makes sense. Fable makes no sense, since a fable is just a small story with animals. They should have used "Legend" rather than Fable.
replyThat's on them imo. The point is consistency
reply[dead]
replyBoth seem to have the same pricing: $2 in / $10 out initially, rising to $4 in / $20 out after the introductory period. That made me wonder whether Carbon might be Argon with additional RL training. What’s the Opus/Sonnet comparison based on?
replyNo, it's not. The naming is just bad. It's the next iteration of Argon
replyI don't think that's right. Carbon and Argon have the same price.
replyI suspect they're using a new naming convention because they had previous contractual obligations tied to the "pro" and "flash" naming, and by switching to a new naming schema they avoid those commitments.
Helium will be small and squeaky I presume
replydeleted
replyCarbon is Fable / Astra level. Argon is their Opus / Sol.
replythen why are both priced like sonnet?
replyCarbon is discounted temporarily. It's twice as expensive as Argon. Google TPUs are more efficient than Nvidia hardware plus Google gets them at cost so they have both better margins and more pricing power compared to other frontier labs.
replyThey didn't pay the Nvidia tax
replySo Argon was 4.0 Flash effectively? Interesting that there is such a small gap between their new Pro and Flash tiers
reply