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.
I agree it’s not perfect. But it’s just 3 terms those non-English speakers need to learn. Which is a lot easier than having to remember every OpenAI model name and how it compares to every other one.
Yes because 5 is smaller than 4, and 4o isn’t even a number.
Also, some ChatGPT models include “gpt” in the name. Others do not.
I cannot guess what model string I need to pass. Whereas with Anthropic I can. And if I have to look it up each time on OpenAIs website, then it’s clearly garbage.
Also the “arcane barely used” part of your post is entirely subjective. I get you want to make the point that Anthropic naming is poor to support your point about OpenAI, but you’re over exaggerating your point there.
But wouldn't the same hold true for Anthropic? Claude 5 Sonnet wouldn't imply that it is larger than Claude 4 Sonnet. The numbering there doesn't mean anything. WITHIN the numbering the sonnet, opus etc mean things, maybe, but it doesn't help anything.
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.