upvote

points

by ff2400t5 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby cloverich4 hours ago|
next
[-]
This is so dorky, but I have a comparison with frisbees. In Disc golf each brand does its own naming scheme related to the speed / stability of discs. One company (Prodigy) produced a _roughly_ ordered approach and people very regularly commented on how confusing it was. By comparison, other brands (which got no critiques) have literally arbitrary names matching only a theme (e.g. electricity, animals, ...mental disorders/phenomena). It took me a very long time to come to grips with it. I ultimately think with branding... it only matters that people who use the system can identify things as distinct. I think the subset of minds that wants a strictly logical relationship to ordering is fleetingly small. To most people its additionally not even relevant.

My only real complaint with Google is they regularly change names for seemingly no reason. I'm still out here saying "Gemini" when I type "agy" and I don't bother saying "Anti gravity" because I assume that name won't exist in a year or two.

reply
upvoteby akoboldfrying5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I think the others are mostly pretty clear. A haiku is a very short poem; a sonnet is a longer poem; an opus is an artistic masterwork ("Magnum opus"), so not necessarily longer but certainly grander. Mythos is slightly more tenuous but still goes in the direction of "cultural awe", something that the highest forms of writing aim for. Fable isn't a perfect name TBH, it sounds much less grand than "mythos" to my ears despite being roughly the same product AFAICT, and with a dangerous hint of "I might make things up".

I think OpenAI's names are clearest. In most people's understanding, moon < Earth < sun < stars.

reply
upvoteby lukevp4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I think of it as earth being where I am, not in relation to the size of the items, so to me it’s weird that Luna is far away, then Terra is close, then Sol is further. So even those names aren’t clear to everyone. Actually I didn’t realize the ordering was size-based until you said it. And Astra isn’t really a size, is it?
reply
upvoteby derektank4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
More importantly, Anthropic has been consistent with their naming convention for years (two, yes, but plural years) now. OpenAI and Google’s habit of changing naming conventions semi-regularly makes their products harder to grok.
reply
upvoteby scottLobster4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Android version names were random desserts for the longest time. People are expecting too much from Google here
reply
upvoteby gloxkiqcza4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
They weren't random. They were alphabetical. The first letter of the name always shifted to the next letter in the alphabet.

• Cupcake (Android 1.5)

• Donut (Android 1.6)

• Eclair (Android 2.0–2.1)

• Froyo (Android 2.2)

• Gingerbread (Android 2.3)

• Honeycomb (Android 3.0–3.2)

• Ice Cream Sandwich (Android 4.0)

• Jelly Bean (Android 4.1–4.3)

• KitKat (Android 4.4)

• Lollipop (Android 5.0–5.1)

• Marshmallow (Android 6.0)

• Nougat (Android 7.0–7.1)

• Oreo (Android 8.0–8.1)

• Pie (Android 9)

reply
upvoteby KeplerBoy4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
They were alphabetically ordered random desserts. It wasn't too bad.
reply
upvoteby oblio4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
This isn't the same situation. Android versions always had 2 parts: the number and the name. They were always easy to follow.

Using constantly changing names for tiers is a bad idea. Unless the tiers are pre-existing (bronze, silver, gold).

reply
upvoteby oblio4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Fable isn't a perfect name TBH

Fables are short.

They should have used "saga" / "epic" / "cycle" / "series" / "universe".

reply
upvoteby yunwal3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I realize that you're making a point about ordering here but realistically none of these except maybe Saga work as Anthropic product names.
reply
upvoteby oblio1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Epic and Universe for sure work as LLM model names.
reply
upvoteby A_D_E_P_T5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> but google is just following the trend of anthropic and OpenAI set up.

They botched it.

A haiku is a short poem. A sonnet is a longer work. An opus is a great work. Mythos is a connected body of works.

As with Open AI, Luna --> Terra --> Sol --> Astra from smallest to largest. Very straightforward.

With Google it's totally incoherent. Hydrogen --> Argon --> Carbon!?

Hydrogen is small, but it's the most abundant element in the universe by far. Argon is >3x larger than carbon by molecular mass, though carbon is more abundant. It's impossible to determine what's supposed to be smaller and what's supposed to be larger.

reply
upvoteby cortesoft5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I never made these connections until now. This will really help me remember which is which, I honestly had just given up.
reply
upvoteby bacheaul1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's funny how different naming schemes "click" (or don't) with different people in different ways. When I first heard the haiku/sonnet/opus it was immediately obvious that they were linking the size of the model to the size of the piece of writing. Same with moon/planet/sun etc. for OpenAI's models.

If Google was going to go with elements, it should have been an absolute no-brainer to link size of of the element to the size of the model eg. Hydrogen/carbon/argon, but no, Google screws up the naming like they _always_ do. Hell, use the noble gases for christ sake. Helium/neon/argon/krypton/xeon would have been great, not perfect mind you, because a lot of people might not remember the ordering of those elements, but at least it would be consistent and make sense.

reply
upvoteby rfgplk5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Yea, impossible to know whether it's supposed to go by atomic mass, frequency or some other metric. Plus most people off the top of their heads don't really have these stats memorized. With OpenAI and Anthropic it's way more straightforward. If you stop the average person on the street and told them to order the three by mass, most couldn't do it. But they could order Moon/Earth/Sun/Astra
reply
upvoteby A_D_E_P_T4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Yeah. Atomic mass: Makes no sense, argon is larger than carbon. Frequency: Makes no sense, argon is least frequent of the three and hydrogen is everywhere, so carbon would be in-between rather than the flagship.

Letters of the alphabet: Also makes no sense. There was a theory that Argon = A, that there was an unreleased B model (Bismuth or Barium or something), Carbon = C, etc. (Similar to Intel's MMORPG-inspired Alchemist --> Battlemage --> Celestial...) Hydrogen broke this notion.

It's just completely incoherent.

reply
upvoteby coafos3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Now written out like this, I can see a D = Deuterium, which is mass 2 or heavy hydrogen, but somewhere along along the line it was lost in translation.
reply
upvoteby Auracle4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I’m not sure if the average person on the street would know the terms Luna, Terra, Sol, and especially Astra.

Also, the biggest being Astra is a bit confusing. Sol is also a star.

Furthermore, unless you know they’re supposed to be ordered by size you can’t know which is best.

reply
upvoteby small_model2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The average person isn't supposed to care, they won't be switching models to prompt for the best television for under $1000. But for professionals they should have some sort of understanding of these things.
reply
upvoteby postepowanieadm3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Corsa, Astra, Vectra and Omega would be better names.
reply
upvoteby Yizahi1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I see that Kadett finally disintegrated into nothingness :)
reply
upvoteby petesergeant4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> I’m not sure if the average person on the street would know the terms Luna, Terra, Sol, and especially Astra.

I don't think these are as difficult as you're making them sound? I think the majority of people who will care what model they're using will know "lunar", "terrestrial", "solar", "astronomy" etc?

reply
upvoteby lp923 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Google genuinely have made a huge mess with their AI product stack. They have Antigravity, Antigravity IDE, Gemini app, AI Studio, etc. They have too many similarly named and confusing products. Google should seriously fire their branding team and bring some new talent to consolidate and restructure things logically.
reply
upvoteby sumeno3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
What's a fable? Why is it bigger than an Opus?
reply
upvoteby Abstract_Typist3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Maybe the AI is trying to tell us its real name !

Ar - C - H - ?

reply
upvoteby Yizahi1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
So the next model will be Yttrium?:)
reply
upvoteby A_D_E_P_T3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
If the next two are oxygen and nitrogen, which are plausible, that would be somewhat sinister.
reply
upvoteby 0gs4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
when you put it this way, it sounds like they are operating on an XY axis (at least) vs a continuum. Argon big, complicated, slow AND expensive; Carbon abundant, widely available, can do anything, costly as a result; Hydrogen, abundant, volatile, cheap. can't imagine how insane Nitrogen must be
reply
upvoteby mamcx4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Sometimes I wonder if naming things is hard or what.
reply
upvoteby kccqzy3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Of course Google is ordering their models by their density at standard temperature and pressure.

Hydrogen: this thing floats. Density less than air.

Argon: does not float. Density more than air.

Carbon: this thing is a solid, whichever allotrope you pick. It’s solidly heavier.

See, so easy! /s

reply
upvoteby smcameron1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I don't know if it's a good idea to market one's AIs by how "dense" they are.
reply
upvoteby kccqzy1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Of course not. See the /s tag.
reply
upvoteby wds5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I find theirs to be a lot more excusable, given it's obvious that the Sun is bigger than the Earth, which is bigger than the Moon. Anthropic less-so, but if you know the meaning of each, you can infer it somewhat well.

Google's is just random.

reply
upvoteby amunozo5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Anthropic's naming does not make sense, but at least they are consistent.
reply
upvoteby ajmurmann4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
What about it makes no sense? I find it to make the most sense, given it's about text generation and their models are named from shortest text to longest.
reply
upvoteby triyambakam5 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
I guess it's poetic but I don't see how haiku < sonnet < opus < fable < mythos is unclear. If you've never been exposed to literature maybe?
reply
upvoteby 4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby sidibe4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
You day that very matter of factly as if it doesn't include "opus < fable"
reply
upvoteby arcfour4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think people on HN argue way too much about this. It's not like they're named iPhone 18 Pro XL Max. It's meant to evoke a feeling of wonder or awe, not really that hard of a logical leap to make, and it's only one minor quibble. Jeesh.
reply
upvoteby ayewo4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Mythos (Greek) = Fable (Latin)

Fable is essentially Mythos but with guard rails added.

reply