9 ms·
Why not rev the numbers? "3.5" vs. "3.5 New" feels weird -- is there a particular reason why Anthropic doesn't want to call this 3.6 (or even 3.5.1)?
by HanClinto 2y ago
Why not rev the numbers? "3.5" vs. "3.5 New" feels weird -- is there a particular reason why Anthropic doesn't want to call this 3.6 (or even 3.5.1)?
- GaggiX 2y agoSimilar to OpenAI when they update their current models they just update the date, for example this new Claude 3.5 Sonnet is "claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022".
- nisten 2y agoFor a company selling intelligence, that's a pretty stupid way of labelling a new product.
- riffraff 2y ago"computer use" is also as bad a marketing choice as possible for something that actually seems pretty cool.
- swyx 2y agoit makes sense in contrast to "tool use". basically, either fly-by-vision or fly-by-instruments, same dilemma you have in self driving cars
- ok_dad 2y agoIt’s simple and easy to understand what it is, that’s good marketing to my ears.
- accrual 2y agoI'm not sure what a better term is. It's kind of understated to me. An AI that can "use a computer" is a simple straightforward sentence but with wild implications.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pglevy 2y agoI had no idea what the headline meant before reading the article. I wasn't even sure how to pronounce "use." (Maybe a typo?) I think something like "Claude adds Keyboard & Mouse Control" would be clearer.
- barrell 2y agoI read the headline 5-10 times trying to make sense of it before even clicking on the link. Native English speaker, just used the other “use” many times
- dartos 2y agoIt worked for Nintendo. The 3ds and “new 3ds” were both big sellers.
- Zambyte 2y ago3ds doesn't have a version number to bump. Claude 3.5 does.
- r00fus 2y agoYou can always add a version number (e.g. 3DS2) or a changed moniker (3DS+).
- cooper_ganglia 2y agoI hear the Nintendo 4DS was very popular with the higher dimensional beings!
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dartos 2y agoThe 3 was the version number ;) Ds and ds lite were version 1 Dsi was 2 (as there was dsi software that didn’t run on ds or ds lite) And the 3ds was version 3.
- dragonwriter 2y agoEvery major AI vendor seems to do it with hosted models; within "named" major versions of hosted models, there are also "dated" minor versions. OpenAI does it. Google does it (although for Google Gemini models, the dated instead of numbered minor versions seem to be only for experimental versions like gemini-1.5-pro-exp-0827, stabled minor versions get additional numbers like gemini-1.5-pro-002.)
- quantadev 2y agoSpeaking of "intelligence", isn't it ironic how everyone's only two words they use to describe AI is "crazy" and "insane". Every other post on Twitter is like: This new feature is insane! This new model is crazy! People have gotten addicted to those words almost as badly as their other new addiction: the word "banger".
- fragmede 2y agoWell yeah. This new model is mentally unwell! and This model is a total sociopath! didn't test as well in focus groups.
- therealmarv 2y agoexactly my thought too, go up with the version number! Some negative examples: Claude Sonnet 3.5 for Workstations, Claude Sonnet 3.5 XP, Claude Sonnet 3.5 Max Pro, Claude Sonnet 3.5 Elite, Claude Sonnet 3.5 Ultra
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- m3kw9 2y agoMaybe they notice 3.5 Sonnet has become a brand and pivot it away from a version
- sureIy 2y agoIs it OS X all over again?
- bloedsinnig 2y agoBecause its a finetune of 3.5 optimized for the use case of computer use. Its actually accurate and its not a 3.6.
- therealmarv 2y agoSo 3.5.1 ?
- dotancohen 2y agoI think that was the last version number for KDE 3. Stands out for me as I once replaced a 2.3 Turbo in a TurboCoupe with a 351 Windsor ))
- r00fus 2y agoFor networks
- usaar333 2y agoI don't think that's correct. This looks like a new model. Significant jump in math and gpqa scores.
- diggan 2y agoIf the architecture is the same, and the training scripts/data is the same, but the training yielded slightly different weights (but still same model architecture), is it a new model or just a iteration on the same model? What if it isn't even a re-training from scratch but a fine-tune of an existing model/weights release, is it a new version then? Would be more like a iteration, or even a fork I suppose.
- cooper_ganglia 2y agoYes, it's a new model, but not a Claude 4. It's the same, but a bit different; Claude 3.6 makes sense to me.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
- KaoruAoiShiho 2y agoMy guess is they didn't actually change the model, that's what the version number no change is conveying. They did some engineering around it to make it respond better, perhaps more resources or different prompts. Same cutoff date too.
- pella 2y agoclaude-3-5-sonnet-20241022
- moffkalast 2y agoclaude-3-5-sonnet-20241022-final-final-2
- abeppu 2y agoThe confusing choice they seem to have made is that "Claude 3.5 Sonnet" is a name, rather than 3.5 being a version. In their view, the model "version" is now `claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022` (and was previously `claude-3-5-sonnet-20240620`). https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/about-claude/models https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/about-claude/models
- dragonwriter 2y agoOpenAI does exactly the same thing, by the way; the named models also have dated versions. For instance, there current models include (only listing versions with more than one dated version for the same "name" version): gpt-4o-2024-08-06 gpt-4o-2024-05-13 gpt-4-0125-preview gpt-4-1106-preview gpt-4-0613 gpt-4-0314 gpt-3.5-turbo-0125 gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
- coder543 2y agoOn the one hand, if OpenAI makes a bad choice, it’s still a bad choice to copy it. On the other hand, OpenAI has moved to a naming convention where they seem to use a name for the model: “GPT-4”, “GPT-4 Turbo”, “GPT-4o”, “GPT-4o mini”. Separately, they use date strings to represent the specific release of that named model. Whereas Anthropic had a name: “Claude Sonnet”, and what appeared to be an incrementing version number: “3”, then “3.5”, which set the expectation that this is how they were going to represent the specific versions. Now, Anthropic is jamming two version strings on the same product, and I consider that a bad choice. It doesn’t mean I think OpenAI’s approach is great either, but I think there are nuances that say they’re not doing exactly the same thing. I think they’re both confusing, but Anthropic had a better naming scheme, and now it is worse for no reason.
- dragonwriter 2y ago> Now, Anthropic is jamming two version strings on the same product, and I consider that a bad choice. It doesn’t mean I think OpenAI’s approach is great either, but I think there are nuances that say they’re not doing exactly the same thing Anthropic has always had dated versions as well as the other components, and they are, in fact, doing exactly the same thing, except that OpenAI has a base model in each generation with no suffix before the date specifier (what I call the "Model Class" on the table below), and OpenAI is inconsistent in their date formats, see: Major Family Generation Model Class Date claude 3.5 sonnet 20041022 claude 3.0 opus 20240229 gpt 4 o 2024-08-06 gpt 4 o-mini 2024-07-18 gpt 4 - 0613 gpt 3.5 turbo 0125
- oezi 2y agoLet's just say that the LLM companies still are learning how to do versioning in a customer friendly way.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y agoWell, by calling it 3.5, they are telling you that this is NOT the next-gen 4.0 that they presumably have in the works, and also not downplaying it by just calling it 3.6 (and anyways they are not advancing versions by 0.1 increments - it seems 3.5 was just meant to convey "half way from 3.0 to 4.0"). Maybe the architecture is unchanged, and this just reflects more pre and/or post-training? Also, they still haven't released 3.5 Opus yet, but perhaps 3.5 Haiku is a distillation of that, indicating that it is close. From a competitive POV, it makes sense that they respond to OpenAI's 4o and o1 without bumping the version to Claude 4.0, which presumably is what they will call their competitor to GPT-5, and probably not release until GPT-5 is out. I'm a fan of Anthropic, and not of OpenAI, and I like the versioning and competitive comparisons. Sonnet 3.5 still best coder, better than o1, has to hurt, and a highly performant cheap Haiku 3.5 will hit OpenAI in the wallet.
- afro88 2y agoJust guessing here, but I think the name "sonnet" is the architecture, the number is the training structure / method, and the model date (not shown) is the data? So presumably with just better data they improved things significantly? Again, just a guess.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]