[Someone1234]

That isn't what "genuinely asking" looks like, you're criticizing using "questions" as cover. It isn't subtle, nor is it constructive.

I agree with them, Sol, Terra, and Luna are confusing names. They mean the same thing as GPT-5.6-Max, GPT-5.6-Plus, and GPT-5.6-Fast but require base knowledge for an analogy.

It feels like it was adding by the marketing department.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

Surely it's size based: Sun (Sol) > Earth (Terra) > Moon (Luna)

Similar to Anthropic's size/length based naming: Opus > Sonnet > Haiku

These names seem easy to understand to me, and much clearer than suffixes like -max and -plus.

[Someone1234]

I'd agree it is similar to Anthropic's naming scheme, which I'd argue shares the same problems as this. It improves marketability/googlability, but decreases actual comprehension.

You don't actually explain why or how these names are "easy to understand" just state that they simply are. That's great; to me, they aren't obvious or intuitive at all. May have well just start randomly pointing at dictionary words.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

I collect roman coins, with latin legends, so the sun/earth/moon references jumped out at me, and partly based on the opus/sonnet/haiku precedent I assumed that these names were referring to different model sizes/prices in a way that mapped to the names (Sun > Earth > Moon).

I'll admit though that until recently I never really thought about Anthropic's naming scheme as having meaning (an Opus being longer than a Sonnet, being longer than a Haiku).

[copperx]

It's just the latin tripping people up. If they had named them sun/earth/moon it would be clearer for some.

Or something like dog/puppy/sperm.

[pheaded_while9]

This demonstrates the problem with an education that has no emphasis on the liberal arts, such as critical thinking. No justification is needed for why and how these names are easy to understand.

[LUmBULtERA]

>They mean the same thing as GPT-5.6-Max, GPT-5.6-Plus, and GPT-5.6-Fast but require base knowledge for an analogy.

But do they though? When do you use GPT-5.6-Max-Low vs. GPT-5.6-Plus High? Or GPT-5.6-Fast-Xhigh? What's the Pareto optimal choice (outcome and price)? According to the benches it seems to bop around and the even if the benches are accurate the best choice isn't always consistent.

[Someone1234]

> When do you use GPT-5.6-Max-Low vs. GPT-5.6-Plus High?

You don't, because that isn't something I proposed using for model naming.

I called them GPT-5.6-Max, GPT-5.6-Plus, and GPT-5.6-Fast. Reasoning levels are distinct from the model design itself, and the UI makes that clear.

Plus, using that same flawed argument this would be called GPT-5.6-Sol-Low or GPT-5.6-Luna-High which also makes no sense/is confusing. So that argument applies (or more accurately doesn't), no matter the model names.

[beering]

Your names are not good because “Fast” is not a descriptor of model size and overlaps with fast/ultrafast inference. And “Plus” collides with the ChatGPT subscription plan. Point being, naming is hard.