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

reply
OpenAI - Celestial body size.

Anthropic - Literary scale.

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

reply
A fable is bigger than an opus? An astra is bigger than a sol, which is also a star?
reply
Indeed. That's why when I had to name my product I named it after a cat.
reply