| In all seriousness there should be ML project naming approaches (I should try ChatGPT). Naming a project or a company is very difficult so I can’t blame anyone here. That said some of these ML project names are especially horrendous (kind of ironic for the current emphasis on generative AI). Transformers? A good chunk of the time I get results about the toys and cartoons from my childhood. Don’t get me wrong, I still think Optimus Prime is cool and the name “transformers” make sense given the function but it’s somehow simultaneously generic AND the name of a decades long multi-billion dollar media franchise… LoRA is another example, name makes sense but the collision with LoRa is problematic. I, for one, am interested in and have/would apply both. Queue google searches for “Lora radio…” vs “Lora ml…”. Project naming is hard and I’m just glad to see the activity and releases. BUT project naming is essentially a base usability condition and should be considered as such: just like creating a README, getting started, providing code examples, etc. It reminds me of trademarks: if you’re looking for trademark protection it won’t be issued if it is overly generic or likely to “cause confusion in the marketplace” with an existing trademark (basically same or similar name in a somewhat similar/adjacent field) - you can even reuse names but only if it’s obvious to people from basic context that they refer to different things. I’m not a trademark attorney but I think LoRa vs LoRA would get refused because it’s “computer stuff”, while a shampoo named Lora would be fine (as an example). If you’re curious there are official categories/areas from the USPTO that break these down. Both of these examples wouldn’t have a chance at trademark protection. Note I’m not saying they should have trademark protection, just that it’s an example of a reasonable standard that should be considered/compared to for good open source project naming. |