Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
> I work at OpenAI and I can try to explain our logic [...] general, models that are bigger will be more performant.

> If you have suggestions on how to name our products better, I'm all ears. Our intention is to make things clear and simple, even if we miss the mark sometimes.

How about naming the models:

"Small", "Medium", "Large" and "Very Large"

Or refer to them by parameter count like other companies (e.g. this is 6.1 5T)

If I have a clothing store, and rather than name the clothes sizes Small, Medium and Large I decide to call them Urgon, Planfar and Fangor I shouldn't be surprised if people think my size naming is confusing or silly. And IMO it's not a great explanation to say "oh it's easy, if you are skinny then you should get Urgon, but then if you are a bit more of a medium build you should get a Planfar, but if you want something a bit baggier than Fangor will really work out for you"

The problem with small, medium, large naming is that they don't last. In a few years our names would have to advance to labels like giant, behemoth, gargantua. This is different than clothing, where we know that in five years humans will be most the same size as today.

As a point of comparison, GPT-3 was launched in a series of small, medium, large, and XL. Back then, XL meant a mere 1.3 billion parameters!

> In a few years our names would have to advance to labels like giant, behemoth, gargantua

You wouldn't - you would just put the version before it - 6.1 Small, 6.0 Medium etc. Not that complex.

Think of an iPhone 18 Pro - No need for 'iPhone 18 Even Better Super Pro' because the 'Pro' is relative with the version/generation.

Reminds me of astronaut sizing charts for ... their waste management devices.-