Comment by hnlmorg
2 months ago
But it’s still better. Which is the point myself and the GP are making.
It might not be perfect, but it’s still a hell of a lot better.
2 months ago
But it’s still better. Which is the point myself and the GP are making.
It might not be perfect, but it’s still a hell of a lot better.
So, 3 arcane barely used words in daily conversation are better than OpenAI's 4, 4o, 5, etc?
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.