4 ms·

The 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 `c

by abeppu 2y ago

The 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 ago
OpenAI 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 ago
  On 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
    - coder543 2y ago
      But did they ever have more than one release of Claude 3 Sonnet? Or any other model prior to today? As far as I can tell, the answer is “no”. If true, then the fact that they previously had date strings would be a purely academic footnote to what I was saying, not actually relevant or meaningful.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by abeppu 2y ago

dragonwriter 2y ago

OpenAI 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 ago
On 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
  - coder543 2y ago
    But did they ever have more than one release of Claude 3 Sonnet? Or any other model prior to today? As far as I can tell, the answer is “no”. If true, then the fact that they previously had date strings would be a purely academic footnote to what I was saying, not actually relevant or meaningful.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]