Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by zamadatix 496 days ago
The -mini postfix makes perfect sense, probably even clearer than the old "turbo" wording. Naturally, the latest small model may be better than larger older models... but not always and not necessarily in everything. What you'd expect from a -mini model is exactly what is delivered.

The non-reasoning line was also pretty straightforward. Newer base models get a larger prefix number and some postfixes like 'o' were added to signal specific features in each model variant. Great!

Where things went of the rails was specifically when they decided to also name the reasoning models with an 'o' for separate reasons but now as the prefix at the same time as starting a separate linear sequence but now as the postfix. I wonder if we'll end up with both a 4o and o4...

1 comments

> I wonder if we'll end up with both a 4o and o4...

The perplexing thing is that someone has to have said that, right? It has to have been brought up in some meeting when they were brainstorming names that if you have 4o and o1 with the intention of incrementing o1 you'll eventually end up with an o4.

Where they really went off the rails was not just bailing when they realized they couldn't use o2. In that moment they had the chance to just make o1 a one-off weird name and go down a different path for its final branding.

OpenAI just struggles with names in general, though. ChatGPT was a terrible name picked by engineers for a product that wasn't supposed to become wildly successful, and they haven't really improved at it since.

The obvious solution could be to just keep skipping the even numbers and go to o5.
Or further the hype and name it o9.
Why not let ChatGPT decide the naming? Surely it will be replacing humans at this task any day now?
And multimodal o4 should be o4o.
Probably they are doing so well because there are not endless meetings on customer friendly names