7 ms·

Not quantized. Weights are the same. If we did change the model, we'd release it as a new model with a new name in the API (e.g., o3-turbo-2025-06-10). It woul

Not quantized. Weights are the same. If we did change the model, we'd release it as a new model with a new name in the API (e.g., o3-turbo-2025-06-10). It would be very annoying to API customers if we ever silently changed models, so we never do this [1]. [1] `chatgpt-4o-latest` being an explicit exception

ant6n 1y ago
It was definitely annoying when o1 disappeared over night, my impression is that was better at some tasks than o3.
thegeomaster 1y ago
Google could at least learn something from this attitude, given their recent 03-25 -> 05-06 model alias switcharoo with 0 notice :)
- johnb231 1y ago
  That is a preview / beta model with no expectation of stability. Google did nothing wrong there. No one should be using a preview model in production.
  - thegeomaster 1y ago
    Hard disagree. Of course technically they didn't do anything explicitly against the public guidance (the checks and balances would never let them), but naming a model with a date very strongly implies immutability. It's the same logic of why UB in C/C++ isn't a license to do whatever the compiler wants. We're humans and we operate on implications, common-sense assumptions and trust.
    - johnb231 1y ago
      The model is labelled as Preview. There are no guarantees of stability or availability for Preview models. Not intended for production workloads. https://cloud.google.com/products?hl=en#product-launch-stages https://cloud.google.com/products?hl=en#product-launch-stage... "At Preview, products or features are ready for testing by customers. Preview offerings are often publicly announced, but are not necessarily feature-complete, and no SLAs or technical support commitments are provided for these. Unless stated otherwise by Google, Preview offerings are intended for use in test environments only. The average Preview stage lasts about six months."
      - refulgentis 1y ago
        There hasn't been a non-preview Gemini since...November? The previews are the same as everyone else's release cadance, "preview" is just a magic wand that meant the Launchcal (google's internal signoff tool, i.e. "wave will never happen again) needs less signoffs. Then it got to the point date-pinned models were getting swapped in, in the name of doing us a favor, and it's a...novel idea, we can both agree at the least. I bet someone at Google would be a bit surprised to see someone jumping to legalese to act like this...novelty...is inherently due to the preview status, and based on anything more than a sense that there's no net harm done to us if it costs the same and is better. I'm not sure they're wrong. But it also leads to a sort of "nobody knows how anything works because we have 2^N configs and 5 bits" - for instance, 05-06 was also upgraded to 06-05. Except it wasn't, if you sent variable thinking to 05-06 after upgrade it'd fail. (and don't get me started on the 5 different thinking configurations for Gemini 2.5 flash thinking vs. gemini 05-06 vs. 06-05 and 0 thinking)
        johnb231 1y ago
        I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say. It's a preview model - for testing only, not for production. Really not that complicated.
        refulgentis 1y ago
        So you don't have anything to contribute beyond, and aren't interested in anything beyond, citing of terms? Why are you in the comments section of a engineering news site? (note: beyond your, excuse me while I'm direct now, boorish know-nothing reply, the terms you are citing have nothing to do with the thing people are actually discussing around you, despite your best efforts. It doesn't say "we might swap in a new service, congrats!", nor does it have anything to say about that. Your legalese at most describes why they'd pull 05-06, not forward 05-06 to 06-05. This is a novel idea.)
        johnb231 1y ago
        This case was simply a matter of people not understanding the terms of service. There is nothing more to be said. It's that simple. The "engineers" should know that before deploying to prod. Basic competence. And I mean I genuinely do not understand what you are trying to say. Couldn't parse it.
linsomniac 1y ago
>we'd release it as a new model with a new name Speaking of a new name. I'll donate the API credits to run a "choose a naming scheme for AI models that isn't confusing AF" for OpenAI.

ant6n 1y ago

It was definitely annoying when o1 disappeared over night, my impression is that was better at some tasks than o3.

thegeomaster 1y ago

Google could at least learn something from this attitude, given their recent 03-25 -> 05-06 model alias switcharoo with 0 notice :)

johnb231 1y ago
That is a preview / beta model with no expectation of stability. Google did nothing wrong there. No one should be using a preview model in production.
- thegeomaster 1y ago
  Hard disagree. Of course technically they didn't do anything explicitly against the public guidance (the checks and balances would never let them), but naming a model with a date very strongly implies immutability. It's the same logic of why UB in C/C++ isn't a license to do whatever the compiler wants. We're humans and we operate on implications, common-sense assumptions and trust.
  - johnb231 1y ago
    The model is labelled as Preview. There are no guarantees of stability or availability for Preview models. Not intended for production workloads. https://cloud.google.com/products?hl=en#product-launch-stages https://cloud.google.com/products?hl=en#product-launch-stage... "At Preview, products or features are ready for testing by customers. Preview offerings are often publicly announced, but are not necessarily feature-complete, and no SLAs or technical support commitments are provided for these. Unless stated otherwise by Google, Preview offerings are intended for use in test environments only. The average Preview stage lasts about six months."
    - refulgentis 1y ago
      There hasn't been a non-preview Gemini since...November? The previews are the same as everyone else's release cadance, "preview" is just a magic wand that meant the Launchcal (google's internal signoff tool, i.e. "wave will never happen again) needs less signoffs. Then it got to the point date-pinned models were getting swapped in, in the name of doing us a favor, and it's a...novel idea, we can both agree at the least. I bet someone at Google would be a bit surprised to see someone jumping to legalese to act like this...novelty...is inherently due to the preview status, and based on anything more than a sense that there's no net harm done to us if it costs the same and is better. I'm not sure they're wrong. But it also leads to a sort of "nobody knows how anything works because we have 2^N configs and 5 bits" - for instance, 05-06 was also upgraded to 06-05. Except it wasn't, if you sent variable thinking to 05-06 after upgrade it'd fail. (and don't get me started on the 5 different thinking configurations for Gemini 2.5 flash thinking vs. gemini 05-06 vs. 06-05 and 0 thinking)
      - johnb231 1y ago
        I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say. It's a preview model - for testing only, not for production. Really not that complicated.
        refulgentis 1y ago
        So you don't have anything to contribute beyond, and aren't interested in anything beyond, citing of terms? Why are you in the comments section of a engineering news site? (note: beyond your, excuse me while I'm direct now, boorish know-nothing reply, the terms you are citing have nothing to do with the thing people are actually discussing around you, despite your best efforts. It doesn't say "we might swap in a new service, congrats!", nor does it have anything to say about that. Your legalese at most describes why they'd pull 05-06, not forward 05-06 to 06-05. This is a novel idea.)
        johnb231 1y ago
        This case was simply a matter of people not understanding the terms of service. There is nothing more to be said. It's that simple. The "engineers" should know that before deploying to prod. Basic competence. And I mean I genuinely do not understand what you are trying to say. Couldn't parse it.

linsomniac 1y ago

>we'd release it as a new model with a new name Speaking of a new name. I'll donate the API credits to run a "choose a naming scheme for AI models that isn't confusing AF" for OpenAI.