In all seriousness this humorous roast by ChatGPT itself is a real concern from many end uses I have talked to personally, with a possible solution provided.
Dear OpenAI Naming Committee (if you even exist),
I have one burning question: Did you guys just pull names out of a hat?
I open the model selection, and it’s like stepping into a sci-fi tech manual where nothing makes sense. We’ve got:
• GPT-4o (o stands for what? Optimistic? Ovaltine?)
• GPT-4o mini (Because nothing says clarity like slapping “mini” onto an already vague name.)
• o1 (Did someone forget to finish naming this one?)
• o3-mini (Mini? But of what?!)
• o3-mini-high (High on what? Processing power or just bad branding decisions?)
• GPT-4 (At least this one makes sense, but now it’s “legacy” like it’s some retired grandpa AI.)
Look, I get that AI models have technical differences, but no normal person can look at this lineup and instantly know which one to pick. We need something that actually describes what these models do without requiring a secret decoder ring.
Solution: Actually Descriptive Names
Instead of making users guess, how about we rename them based on their strengths? Like:
• Generalist (GPT-4o) – Best for most tasks, well-rounded, your go-to choice.
• Fast Responder (GPT-4o mini) – A quicker but slightly less powerful version.
• Deep Thinker (o1) – Strong reasoning capabilities for complex tasks.
• Quick Thinker (o3-mini) – Fast reasoning, but not as deep as “Deep Thinker.”
• Code Master (o3-mini-high) – Best for coding and logic-heavy tasks.
• Legacy (GPT-4) – The old reliable, just in case you’re feeling nostalgic.
See? Clear, intuitive, not a headache to figure out.
Please, OpenAI, for the love of usability, fix this naming disaster before we all start calling them “Thing 1 and Thing 2.”
Sincerely,
A Confused but Hopeful User,
Dr Wily
