3 ms·

OpenAI definitely tarnished the name of GPT-5 by allowing these issues to occur. It's clearly a smaller model optimized for cost and speed. Compare it to GPT-4.

OpenAI definitely tarnished the name of GPT-5 by allowing these issues to occur. It's clearly a smaller model optimized for cost and speed. Compare it to GPT-4.5 which didn't have these errors but was "too expensive for them". This is why Anthropic naming system of haiku sonnet and opus to represent size is really nice. It prevents this confusion.

NoahZuniga 1y ago
> This is why Anthropic naming system of haiku sonnet and opus to represent size is really nice. It prevents this confusion. In contrast to GPT-5, GPT-5 mini and GPT-5 nano?
- Taek 1y ago
  The problem is that GPT-5 is a smaller model than its predecessors.
  - csallen 1y ago
    But there's nothing in Claude's naming scheme stopping Claude 5 from being smaller than its predecessors.
- prophesi 1y ago
  I think it's a valid complaint that the naming scheme for the various GPT-4 models were very confusing. GPT-5 just launched, and doesn't (yet?) have a GPT-5 Turbo or GPT-o5 mini to muddy the waters.
  - tempodox 1y ago
    In marketing, confusion is a feature, not a bug.
rootnod3 1y ago
I mean yeah, but to many non-native speakers, sonnet and opus don't immediately convey size or complexity of the models.
- csallen 1y ago
  I'm a well-educated native English speaker and "haiku", "sonnet", and "opus" don't immediately make me think of their size differences.
  - rootnod3 1y ago
    Exactly. Doesn't mean that OpenAI has a better or worse naming. They all don't convey anything out of the gate. 4.large, 4.medium, 4.fast, 4. reasoning etc. or something similar would probably be better.
    - hnlmorg 1y ago
      OpenAI easily has worse naming. Anthropic model names might not immediately conjure up their size and performance, but the name is at least internally consistent. Once you know what Anthropic call “medium”, you know what it is for all model releases. Whereas OpenAIs naming convention, if you can even call it a “convention”, feels absolutely random to even those in the industry. I do like your proposed naming convention though. It doesn’t sound “cool” so I can’t see any product managers approving it within the AI tech firms. But it’s definitely the best naming convention for models I’ve seen suggested for a while.
- iLoveOncall 1y ago
  I think non-native speakers have the ability to remember that one word equals big and another equals medium. If anything it's a lot less confusing that the awful naming convention from OpenAI up until 5.
  - rootnod3 1y ago
    How about just calling it 4.large, 4.medium, etc.? Is it that difficult? Sure, an opus is supposed to be large, but a sonnet is not restricted in size but rather a style of poem. So sonnet and opus mean nothing when compared to each other.
- hnlmorg 1y ago
hnlmorg 1y ago
Yeah, one of the main reasons I switched my tooling over to default to Anthropic models despite starting out with OpenAI for months prior, was because I often switch between different model sizes depending on the complexity of the prompt vs the speed I want the result. I would frequently spend time going back to OpenAIs site to remind me of their different models. There’s no consistency there whatsoever. But with Anthropic is was easy. If I have to spend 5 minutes picking a model then I might as well do the task myself. So Claude became a natural solution for me.
andrewla 1y ago
> OpenAI definitely tarnished the name of GPT-5 by allowing these issues to occur For a certain class of customer maybe that is true. But the reality is that the fact that this occurs is very encouraging -- they are not micro-optimizing to solve cosmetic problems that serve no functional purpose. They are instead letting these phenomena serve as external benchmarks of a sort to evaluate how well the LLM can work on tasks that are outside of its training data, and outside of what one would expect the capabilities to be.
radicality 1y ago
Oh wow, I stare at those model names every day, and I only just now after reading your comment realized what “haiku”, “sonnet”, and “opus” imply about the models! Seems super obvious in retrospect but never thought about it!

NoahZuniga 1y ago

> This is why Anthropic naming system of haiku sonnet and opus to represent size is really nice. It prevents this confusion. In contrast to GPT-5, GPT-5 mini and GPT-5 nano?

Taek 1y ago
The problem is that GPT-5 is a smaller model than its predecessors.
- csallen 1y ago
  But there's nothing in Claude's naming scheme stopping Claude 5 from being smaller than its predecessors.
prophesi 1y ago
I think it's a valid complaint that the naming scheme for the various GPT-4 models were very confusing. GPT-5 just launched, and doesn't (yet?) have a GPT-5 Turbo or GPT-o5 mini to muddy the waters.
- tempodox 1y ago
  In marketing, confusion is a feature, not a bug.

rootnod3 1y ago

I mean yeah, but to many non-native speakers, sonnet and opus don't immediately convey size or complexity of the models.

csallen 1y ago
I'm a well-educated native English speaker and "haiku", "sonnet", and "opus" don't immediately make me think of their size differences.
- rootnod3 1y ago
  Exactly. Doesn't mean that OpenAI has a better or worse naming. They all don't convey anything out of the gate. 4.large, 4.medium, 4.fast, 4. reasoning etc. or something similar would probably be better.
  - hnlmorg 1y ago
    OpenAI easily has worse naming. Anthropic model names might not immediately conjure up their size and performance, but the name is at least internally consistent. Once you know what Anthropic call “medium”, you know what it is for all model releases. Whereas OpenAIs naming convention, if you can even call it a “convention”, feels absolutely random to even those in the industry. I do like your proposed naming convention though. It doesn’t sound “cool” so I can’t see any product managers approving it within the AI tech firms. But it’s definitely the best naming convention for models I’ve seen suggested for a while.
iLoveOncall 1y ago
I think non-native speakers have the ability to remember that one word equals big and another equals medium. If anything it's a lot less confusing that the awful naming convention from OpenAI up until 5.
- rootnod3 1y ago
  How about just calling it 4.large, 4.medium, etc.? Is it that difficult? Sure, an opus is supposed to be large, but a sonnet is not restricted in size but rather a style of poem. So sonnet and opus mean nothing when compared to each other.
hnlmorg 1y ago

hnlmorg 1y ago

Yeah, one of the main reasons I switched my tooling over to default to Anthropic models despite starting out with OpenAI for months prior, was because I often switch between different model sizes depending on the complexity of the prompt vs the speed I want the result. I would frequently spend time going back to OpenAIs site to remind me of their different models. There’s no consistency there whatsoever. But with Anthropic is was easy. If I have to spend 5 minutes picking a model then I might as well do the task myself. So Claude became a natural solution for me.

andrewla 1y ago

> OpenAI definitely tarnished the name of GPT-5 by allowing these issues to occur For a certain class of customer maybe that is true. But the reality is that the fact that this occurs is very encouraging -- they are not micro-optimizing to solve cosmetic problems that serve no functional purpose. They are instead letting these phenomena serve as external benchmarks of a sort to evaluate how well the LLM can work on tasks that are outside of its training data, and outside of what one would expect the capabilities to be.

radicality 1y ago

Oh wow, I stare at those model names every day, and I only just now after reading your comment realized what “haiku”, “sonnet”, and “opus” imply about the models! Seems super obvious in retrospect but never thought about it!