← Back to context

Comment by MrOrelliOReilly

5 hours ago

In this age of constant change, I am grateful that at least I can still rely on Google for confusing, ever-changing product names.

They should at least tell us the atomic mass they're using.

If it's based on carbon-14 it will lose half its model weights in 5,730 years; if it's based on carbon-12, it's a stable release.

Next version: Gemini Tokyo Drift

How is this any different than terra, sol etc or leopard, yosemite etc, or model x, y, 3, s ..

  • Don't know about the leopard and model x, but at least in the case of OpenAI luna > Terra > Sol > Astra is a pretty obvious size progression.

    But I come from a latin language background, so maybe I'm a bit biased there.

  • Astra > Sol > Terra > Luna seems clear enough to me

    Leopard (10.5) and Yosemite (10.10) both came with clear version numbers

    Model X and Model Y are siblings which do not have a clear hierarchical relationship

    Gemini 4 Carbon and Gemini 4 Argon are rather difficult for me to tell at a glance

  • Luna/Terra/Sol/Astra make perfect sense, it indicates model tier/size with larger celestial body representing larger model.

    Same for Anthropic, consistent model tier naming reused across model generations.

    Those are just like i3/i5/i7 or M-series Pro/Max/Ultra.

    But Carbon seems to be full replacement of Argon announced two weeks ago, they're same price. So Argon doesn't mean anything, they just picked random element.

    • Both openai and anthropic names feel much more confusing than cpu names to me.

      They'd be fine except every named model has multiple numbered versions, with no consistent relatioship between cost or capability corresponding to the version numbers going up or down.

  • terra/sol or opus/haiku give an indication of size (the sun is bigger than the earth, opus is larger than a haiku). Carbon is smaller than argon (periodic table speaking), so that's no longer a helpful way of thinking about the model sizes...

Yeah...some people complain about OpenAI and Anthropic's model naming schemes but at least it's fairly obvious from the names how they scale, how is ordering for Argon and Carbon supposed to be interpreted? And there's the 3.x and 2.x models which I don't think have elemental names (at least not public ones). The obvious atomic number or standard weight approach doesn't work.

It does more than merely being different, it also collides with the name of another Google project: the Carbon programming language.

True. And if Carbon (6) is better than Argon (18), wouldn't that make Hydrogen (1) the ultimate Gemini model, or will the next model jump to another random element?

  O, B, Sc, U, Re?
  Ra, Nd?

Don't worry, the name was chosen as a reminder to everyone of the environmental impact.

i'm also confused. my speculation is they trained a lot of different versions/revisions of models. maybe they're different base architectures, maybe they're different pretraining sets, or maybe they're different RL/post training regimes, and we're just seeing a few of them. still not sure what the names would mean internally though even in that case

or I'm dumb and its just elements with names starting with A, B, C

Argon - first version, Bismuth - internal, Carbon - second version for the public if I had to make a wild guess.

  • Other sources say that what was publicly released as Argon was already the second version named Barium internally. So there was a separate internal Argon and public Argon was Barium. Not confusing at all for them! https://www.reddit.com/r/GeminiAI/comments/1x292ly/a_new_che...

    • The internal joke was that we're even scaling the off-by-one errors; Gemini 4 was not the fourth major model version.

    • Still better than Anthropic. If I create someday doomsday device, its turn off code will be to sort Anthropic models by strength given only their names, without access to the internet.

      2 replies →

  • Clearly, Google has already fired their marketing department and Gemini sucks at this job.

    Maybe it thought the names are clear and intuitive (for an LLM perhaps).

  • This naming strategy is bizarre.

    There are no good elements for D; Dysprosium is the only one, and it's a mouthful. There are no good elements for E; Europium is the only one and would seem political. Is Fluorine their next release? (And then Gallium or Gadolinium?)

    After Carbon, they should just update to Gemini 4.1 or 4.5 or whatever, and drop the random unrelated elements.

    • I don't think calling a model europium will be seen as political if it is a clear line of alphabetical animals, but who knows what the fine president can cook up

What's so confusing? Gemini is a constellation. Constellations are likely made of carbon and sometimes are made out of flash. And sometimes there's argon involved. Seems to make perfect sense to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't mind Carbon, Argon kind of throws me off because my brain autocompletes to Argonian... I still have no idea what the different ones from OpenAI mean. Can we just go back to "Silver, Gold, Platinum" for naming things? Something simple we've all understood, always.

  • Reading the Argonian reference made my brain immediately think “The Lusty Carbonian Maid”

    • Oh man, I just looked it up on my phone (still at work LOL) and I have go to go back to reading books when I play Elder Scrolls, I always seem to read only the ones without the funny stories in them for some reason...

I'm kind of disappointed they haven't hit on releasing some models under the Alphabet name. That'd really stir things up. Then maybe Nest after that.