logoalt Hacker News

MrOrelliOReilly • yesterday at 5:44 PM • 19 replies • view on HN

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


Replies

thisisauserid • yesterday at 6:31 PM

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.

➕ show 2 replies
Lucasoato • yesterday at 6:04 PM

Next version: Gemini Tokyo Drift

➕ show 11 replies
bitpush • yesterday at 5:52 PM

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

➕ show 7 replies
MaxBarraclough • yesterday at 8:19 PM

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

r0fl • yesterday at 10:37 PM

I cannot figure out how to use anything better than 3.1 pro even on a paying account. There’s 3.8 flash and 3.5 flashlight. I can’t figure out which one is better so I’ve given up trying. It’s just too confusing. there’s too much competition for this type of confusion for the customer.

➕ show 1 reply
kleiba2 • yesterday at 7:58 PM

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

Revanche1367 • yesterday at 10:01 PM

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.

closetheloopdev • yesterday at 6:38 PM

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?
itsgrimetime • yesterday at 7:52 PM

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

thisisit • yesterday at 7:32 PM

I am surprised there is no Gemini: will return in Avengers Doomsday.

dennysora-main • yesterday at 8:36 PM

This can't help but remind me of the USB organization's ridiculous naming.

ReptileMan • yesterday at 5:51 PM

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

➕ show 5 replies
laybak • yesterday at 5:56 PM

this captured the sentiment of my first reaction as well

➕ show 1 reply
inom155 • yesterday at 9:12 PM

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)_/¯

giancarlostoro • yesterday at 6:17 PM

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.

➕ show 1 reply
brookst • yesterday at 6:24 PM

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.

saberience • yesterday at 5:54 PM

Ah yeah, Carbon it's so OBVIOUSLY a superior element to Argon!

➕ show 3 replies
moffkalast • yesterday at 6:13 PM

Anyone still remember Bard? Google would probably desperately want us to forget lmao.

➕ show 1 reply