[ryanhecht]

> While OpenAI o1 remains our broader general knowledge reasoning model, OpenAI o3-mini provides a specialized alternative for technical domains requiring precision and speed.

I feel like this naming scheme is growing a little tired. o1 is for general knowledge reasoning, o3-mini replaces o1-mini but might be more specialized than o1 for certain technical domains...the "o" in "4o" is for "omni" (referring to its multimodality) but the reasoning models start with "o" ...but they can't use "o2" for trademark reasons so they skip straight to "o3" ...the word salad is getting really hard to follow!

[zamadatix]

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...

[lolinder]

> 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.

[unsupp0rted]

This is definitely intentional.

You can like Sama or dislike him, but he knows how to market a product. Maybe this is a bad call on his part, but it is a call.

[thorum]

Not really. They’re successful because they created one of the most interesting products in human history, not because they have any idea how to brand it.

[FridgeSeal]

I think it’s success in spite of branding, not because of it.

This naming scheme is a dumpster fire. Every other comment is trying to untangle what the actual hierarchy of model performance is.

[mrbungie]

That's like making a second reading and appealing to authority.

The naming is bad. Other people already said it you can "google" stuff, you can "deepseek" something, but to "chatgpt" sounds weird.

The model naming is even weirder, like, did they really avoid o2 because of oxigen?

[kingnothing]

They really need someone in marketing.

If the model is for technical stuff, then call it the technical model. How is anyone supposed to know what these model names mean?

The only page of theirs attempting to explain this is a total disaster. https://platform.openai.com/docs/models

[TeMPOraL]

> How is anyone supposed to know what these model names mean?

Normies don't have to know - ChatGPT app focuses UX around capabilities and automatically picks the appropriate model for capabilities requested; you can see which model you're using and change it, but don't need to.

As for the techies and self-proclaimed "AI experts" - OpenAI is the leader in the field, and one of the most well-known and talked about tech companies in history. Whether to use, praise or criticize, this group of users is motivated to figure it out on their own.

It's the privilege of fashionable companies. They could name the next model ↂ-↊↋, and it'll take all of five minutes for everyone in tech (and everyone on LinkedIn) to learn how to type in the right Unicode characters.

EDIT: Originally I wrote \Omega-↊↋, but apparently HN's Unicode filter extends to Greek alphabet now? 'dang?

[n2d4]

> They really need someone in marketing.

Who said this is not intentional? It seems to work well given that people are hyped every time there's a release, no matter how big the actual improvements are — I'm pretty sure "o3-mini" works better for that purpose than "GPT 4.1.3"

[golly_ned]

Yes, this $300Bn company generating +$3.4Bn in revenue needs to hire marketing expert. They can begin by sourcing ideas from us here to save their struggling business from total marketing disaster.

[ninetyninenine]

I bet you can get one of their models to fix that disaster.

[rowanG077]

If marketing terms from intel, AMD, Dell and other tech companies have taught me anything, it's that they need LESS of people in marketing.

[ryanhecht]

Ugh, and some of the rows of that table are "sets of models" while some are singular models...there's the "Flagship models" section at the top only for "GPT models" to be heralded as "Our fast, versatile, high intelligence flagship models" in the NEXT section...

...I like "DALL·E" and "Whisper" as names a lot, though, FWIW :p

[koakuma-chan]

Name is just a label. It's not supposed to mean anything.

[golol]

I don't find OpenAIs naming conventions confusing, except that the o for omni and the o for reasoning have nothing to do with eachother. That's a crime.

[fourseventy]

It's almost as bad as the Xbox naming scheme.

[Someone1234]

I don't know if anything is as bad as a games console named "Series."

[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.

[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?

[layer8]

Inscrutable naming is a proven strategy for muddying the waters.

[jtwaleson]

Salesforce would like a word...