Closi

Its easy to see what works in hindsight, but in reality with this sort of research you have to find an approach that’s working and keep pushing it and see where it goes.

The results so far from genie have been stunning, and its not obvious to me that another approach is guaranteed to end up better for all use cases.

I mean Astra actually means star, but putting that aside, we also have GPT sunburst and GPT flare - how does the logic apply to these?

Is a sunburst supposed to be bigger than a flare? I mean you get solar flares too? Or is a solar flare bigger than a sun 'burst' which usually just means some sun coming through clouds.

100%! The other problem is that the next model release from OpenAI there will be another different 4 terms.

It depends if the goal is a more accurate simulation, or if the goal is a tool for creatives to build games or content.

If it's the latter, I don't see a 'hole'.

> In a few years our names would have to advance to labels like giant, behemoth, gargantua

You wouldn't - you would just put the version before it - 6.1 Small, 6.0 Medium etc. Not that complex.

Think of an iPhone 18 Pro - No need for 'iPhone 18 Even Better Super Pro' because the 'Pro' is relative with the version/generation.

At least there is a simple system - the words 'Mini' and 'Max' are intended to refer to the size of the item (that one is miniature, and the other is their maximum size).

If they were called iPhone 14 Luna and iPhone 16 Sol then this is less clear.

Or on the flipside, if the models were called GPT 6.1 Mini and GPT 6.1 Max, nobody would be arguing about the names being hard to grok. The words 'mini' or 'small' are more descriptive than 'Luna' or 'Terra'.

> I work at OpenAI and I can try to explain our logic [...] general, models that are bigger will be more performant.

> If you have suggestions on how to name our products better, I'm all ears. Our intention is to make things clear and simple, even if we miss the mark sometimes.

How about naming the models:

"Small", "Medium", "Large" and "Very Large"

Or refer to them by parameter count like other companies (e.g. this is 6.1 5T)

If I have a clothing store, and rather than name the clothes sizes Small, Medium and Large I decide to call them Urgon, Planfar and Fangor I shouldn't be surprised if people think my size naming is confusing or silly. And IMO it's not a great explanation to say "oh it's easy, if you are skinny then you should get Urgon, but then if you are a bit more of a medium build you should get a Planfar, but if you want something a bit baggier than Fangor will really work out for you"

> hopefully this quells some of the "AI is unprofitable everyone is spending a dollar to make fifty cents" arguments.

I think everyone has known that inference is profitable overall for the major providers for a while (I'm sure not all user accounts, but in aggregate).

The major providers are unprofitable after you add in the training and research costs and other overheads.

This is why the open source models are such a threat if they become good enough - it will destroy the business model of just providing raw chat/intelligence.

Arguably that's also why a few of these providers are trying to diversify into whole-platform approaches rather than just relying on having their whole thing be a great model.

IP Whitelist, this is standard stuff.

I think this is quite a theoretical view, and in reality:

* The majority of missed payments and defaults don't end up as CCJ's, as often these are settled or just happen without going to court.

* Fraud being illegal doesn't stop people committing fraud on you. The idea is to prevent yourself from getting frauded.

Without some sort of central authority, surely this is just vulnerable to a rollback attack?

i.e. if I am a bad actor, and had just defaulted on a loan, why would the next document I send not be my copy of the previous 'clean' record before I got that loan?

Or what prevents me from sending out the same copy of the document to 10 other parties and getting 10 loans concurrently?

These are the sort of scenarios that the existing credit agencies prevent.

Then we follow it through and get to some sort of decentralised ledger to protect against these attacks, but that's then vulnerable to not being able to be expunged (how do we make sure it's possible to correct the record, as the CRA's are legally required to do when information has been written incorrectly).

So we end up with some sort of central authority.

Well, it's usually much cheaper to use a non-Amazon 3PL to ship your Amazon volume (along with other D2C channels), but then you might not have the prime badge if you go on the cheaper side of the market.

And even if you want a prime badge, it's often/usually cheaper to go with a 3PL that can do some sort of SFP setup if you have reasonable volumes.

Although Amazon has a stranglehold on 3PL's too (or if you are a seller offering SFP), as they will force you to use Amazon Logistics at a certain % of volume if you want the prime badge which can be more expensive than other carriers.

(I work in logistics consulting and do network strategy design & 3PL selection as part of that so have a reasonably up to date view on comparative/competitive costs for this sort of thing - mostly in Europe though and appreciate the USA market is different)

I don't see how this works in reality - The issue is that users wouldn't upload negative information (e.g. county court judgements or the bank robbery from your example).

Credit isn't like insurance where these things can be checked later during a claim (which can then be denied) - you need to know the person is a bad-payer before you send them the ten thousand dollar loan as that affects the terms, not afterwards when they default and you can't get your money back.

It's much faster and cheaper (an order of magnitude).

And theoretically will give you better answers statistically as it's calibrated.

Or almost any invention for that matter.

Washing machines can’t do anything humans do, they just remove labour. Trucks don’t do anything longboats can’t, it just need less labour and time/effort to build roads rather than canals. Computers can’t calculate anything humans can’t dry run by hand etc.

Everything in reality is about reducing time/effort/material/cost or achieving more with less resource.