I know marketing folks prefer poetic names, but I wish we had consistent naming like v1.0, 2.0 etc, instead of renaming your product line every year like Apple and Xbox does. Confusing and opaque.
1: Trying to design and impose an ontology, echo that in naming, and then keep it coherent in perpetuity.
2: Accept that definition cannot be solved at the naming level, expect people to read the docs to dereference names, and name it whatever the hell you want.
Honestly, as long as they don't suddenly repurpose names, I have no problem with either approach. They both have their pros and cons.
PS: And jungle does have the benefit of keeping developers from making assumptions about stringN+1 in the future...
It seems pretty clear, they started with Bert, to borrow from AllenAIs Elmo, then Big Bird, and made some friends with Palms along the way. So of course Bard would make sense and is a natural next name.
Then it gets even simpler really, by switching Bard to Gemini it really streamlined the naming. Gemini nano < Gemini Pro 1.0 == Gemini Advanced Then after that Gemini 1.5 Pro, but that's still worse than Gemini Ultra 1.0 which is still better than Advanced. They have made it a bit easier now though with Gemma, which is worse than all of them, but still a little bigger than what you want to run on a phone, which is a great reason to introduce Germa X. I'm mostly excited for Germa X2 version deXbox though. That's when we finally get a decent model for desktop boxes.
Apple is famous for not updating product names. This year’s MacBook Pro is just “MacBook Pro”, same as last year’s, and so on since the beginning. You have to dig to get actual names like “M3, nov 2023” or the less ambiguous Mac15,3.
That said, I agree with you. Navigating the jungle of LLMs all over the place with utterly stupid naming schemes is not easy.