[observationist]

They should be calling it ChatGPT and ChatGPT-mini, with other models hidden behind some sort of advanced mode power user menu. They can roll out major and minor updates by number. The whole point of differentiating between models is to get users to self limit the compute they consume - rate limits make people avoid using the more powerful models, and if they have a bad experience using the less capable models, or if they're frustrated by hopping between versions without some sort of nuanced technical understanding, it's just a bad experience overall.

OpenAI is so scattered they haven't even bothered using their own state of the art AI to come up with a coherent naming convention? C'mon, get your shit together.

[TeMPOraL]

"ChatGPT" (chatgpt-4o) is now its own model, distinct from gpt-4o.

As for self-limiting usage by non-power users, they're already doing that: ChatGPT app automatically picks a model depending on what capabilities you invoke. While they provide a limited ability to see and switch the model in use, they're clearly expecting regular users not to care, and design their app around that.

[observationist]

None of that matters to normal users, and you could satisfy power users with serial numbers or even unique ideograms. Naming isn't that hard, and their models are surprisingly adept at it. A consistent naming scheme improves customer experience by preventing confusion - when a new model comes out, I field questions for days from friends and family - "what does this mean? which model should i use? Aww, I have to download another update?" and so on. None of the stated reasons for not having a coherent naming convention for their models are valid. I'd be upset as a stakeholder, they're burning credibility and marketing power for no good reason.

modelname(variant).majorVersion.minorVersion ChatGPT(o).3.0 ChatGPT-mini(o).3.0 GPT.2.123 GPT.3.9

And so on. Once it's coherent, people pick it up, and naturally call the model by "modelname majorversion" , and there's no confusion or hesitance about which is which. See, it took me 2 minutes.

Even better: Have an OAI slack discussion company-wide, then have managers summarize their team's discussions into a prompt demonstrating what features they want out of it, then run all the prompts together and tell the AI to put together 3 different naming schemes based on all the features the employees want. Roll out a poll and have employees vote which of the 3 gets used going forward. Or just tap into that founder mode and pick one like a boss.

Don't get me wrong, I love using AI - we are smack dab in the middle of a revolution and normal people aren't quite catching on yet, so it's exhilarating and empowering to be able to use this stuff, like being one of the early users of the internet. We can see what's coming, and if you lived through the internet growing up, you know there's going to be massive, unexpected synergies and developments of systems and phenomena we don't yet have the words for.

OpenAI can do better, and they should.

[TeMPOraL]

I agree with your observations, and that they both could and should do better. However, they have the privilege of being the AI company, the most hyped-up brand in the most hyped-up segment of economy - at this point, the impact of their naming strategy is approximately nil. Sure, they're confusing their users a bit, but their users are very highly motivated.

It's like with videogames - most of them commit all kinds of UI/UX sins, and I often wish they didn't, but excepting extreme cases, the players are too motivated to care or notice.

[golol]

This mentality is why teenagers can't use a file system. Why do tech people love to hide as much state as possible. Does it really help anyone?