There’s a fascinating story about S Chandrasekhar (of Chandrasekhar limit fame) driving 100 miles to teach him every week. Teaching two students, the professor got a Nobel prize and the two students got a Nobel prize.
“ One story in particular illustrates Chandrasekhar's devotion to his science and his students. In the 1940s, while he was based at the University's Yerkes Observatory in Williams Bay, Wis., he drove more than 100 miles round-trip each week to teach a class of just two registered students. Any concern about the cost-effectiveness of such a commitment was erased in 1957, when the entire class -- T.D. Lee and C.N. Yang -- won the Nobel Prize in physics.”
There’s already some work looking into this[1]. The authors add invisible prompts in papers/grants to embed watermarks in reviews and then show that they can detect LLM generated reviews with reasonable accuracy (more than chance, but there’s no 100% detection yet).
Even o3 can't figure out the naming scheme. When asked to generate names that would be easier to use by non-technical people, it assumed o3 and o4 are the smallest models:
```
Below is one straightforward, user-friendly approach you could adopt.
It keeps two dimensions only—generation and tier—and reserves an optional “optimisation” suffix for special-purpose variants (e.g. vision, coding, long-context).
⸻
1. Core conventions
Element Purpose Example values
Generation Major architectural release. Keep a whole number; use “.1”, “.2”… for mid-cycle improvements. 4, 4.1, 4.5
Tier Rough capability / cost band, easy to interpret. Lite, Standard, Pro, Ultra
Suffix (optional) Special optimisation or domain specialisation. -LongCtx, -Vision, -Code
Why this works
• No ambiguous letters or numerics – “o3” can be read as “03” or “oz”; avoid that entirely.
• Self-explanatory language – non-technical users recognise “Lite” versus “Pro” instantly.
• Scalable – new minor rev? bump the generation (4.2). Need a cheaper size? add a Nano tier without disturbing the rest.
⸻
2. Applying it to your current list
Current name Proposed new name Rationale
GPT-4o GPT-4 Standard Baseline flagship of the 4-series.
o3 GPT-4 Lite Same generation, lowest tier.
o4-mini GPT-4 Lite+ (or GPT-4 Lite LongCtx if that’s the point) Indicates “Lite” family but a bit more capable; “+” or a suffix clarifies how.
o4-mini-high GPT-4 Standard LongCtx (or GPT-4 Lite Pro) Pick one dimension: either it’s still “Lite” but higher context, or it has moved into “Standard”.
GPT-4.5 GPT-4.5 Standard Mid-cycle architectural upgrade, default tier.
GPT-4.1 GPT-4.1 Standard Ditto.
GPT-4.1-mini GPT-4.1 Lite Same generation, smaller/cheaper option.
⸻
3. Quick style guide for future models
1. Stick to two words (or two words + optional suffix)
GPT-5 Pro, GPT-5 Lite-Vision – still readable at a glance.
2. Reserve extra punctuation for special cases only
Hyphens or the “+” symbol should signal meaning, not be decorative.
3. Publish a public matrix
A small table in docs or the dashboard that maps Generation × Tier → context length, cost, latency eliminates guesswork.
⸻
One-line summary
GPT- [-Specialisation] keeps names short, descriptive and future-proof—so even non-technical users can tell instantly which model suits their needs.
```
o4-mini? It is a rumored model building up on o3, and different from 4o-mini. Sorry, their naming scheme is a mess. Would be cool if you do have o4-mini access though.
I have been using the Obsidian web clipper to export chats from ChatGPT and Claude web versions to nicely-formatted md files. You can save md to Obsidian or download it as a standalone file. It doesn’t support Gemini yet though.
Interesting discussion on the merits of the initial plan of a paid link shortening service and the opposite approach (easy-to-setup paid access to links).They were discussing adding Bitcoin as a payment method when it was 0.7 cents a pop.
Is it just me or does Gemini fail the 4D tesseract spinning challenge? That solution looks like a 3D object spinning in 3D space. It seems Claude's solution is better (still difficult to interpret). For reference, this is what a 4D rotation projected to 3D should look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract
Hi, I have a latex resume/cv too and am curious about "some protections against recruiters trying to copy and paste and change things". What does that mean?
Wonderful vizualization and library! Many years ago I made a Chua's circuit PCB for an electronics course[0]. We had to dust off an old Cold War era analog oscilloscope to actually see the attractors because the resolution of the newer digital ones induced too many artefacts.
I want to use this library to vizualize this using the electronic component values now.
This actually happened much earlier in the first half of the 20th century. It was an international cartel with household names (GE, Osram, Phillips etc).
"The cartel tested their bulbs and fined manufacturers for bulbs that lasted more than 1,000 hours."
I am currently working on physics-informed ML models for accelerating DFT calculations and am broadly interested in ML PDE solvers. Overall, I think physics-informed ML (not just PINNs) will be very impactful for computationally heavy science and engineering simulations. Nvidia and Ansys already have "AI" acceleration for their sims.
I think the parent comment is addressing the Kindle app on iPad rather than the iPadOS. IMO the Kindle app has been buggy on iPad and Mac. They recently overhauled the Mac app to be more like iPad (Catalyst I guess).
It's not exactly at the South Pole. It is somewhere around 70 deg latitude. It is lunar day now which will last for about 12 (earth) days. After lunar night falls, the rover and the lander will probably stop working. They might try reviving them in the next lunar day but there are no guarantees given the extreme conditions of the lunar night. Also this might be an interesting tangent (not related to CH3):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light
Stretching the analogy from the original commenter, the code is “in production “. It is already running, it is the conscious part of you. Reading all the self help books in the world will only reinforce the things that the system already believes and reject uncomfortable things. As for introspection, often by the time people get therapy, the processor load is already high enough that there is little room for introspection. A therapist is a trained debugger, and can help you get out of your own head and see things more “objectively”.
Also knowing is different from doing. What’s stopping you learning karate or bjj from books or even videos? You already have the hardware for it. But you need to learn new patterns, and a coach can often get you there more effectively. Also having a sparring partner is a good way to break old patterns and build new ones. Now replace karate with mental models/peace of mind etc, except now your system is not performing optimally by this point.
“ One story in particular illustrates Chandrasekhar's devotion to his science and his students. In the 1940s, while he was based at the University's Yerkes Observatory in Williams Bay, Wis., he drove more than 100 miles round-trip each week to teach a class of just two registered students. Any concern about the cost-effectiveness of such a commitment was erased in 1957, when the entire class -- T.D. Lee and C.N. Yang -- won the Nobel Prize in physics.”
Source: https://chronicle.uchicago.edu/951012/chandra.shtml