AFAIK there is no difference between "generation" and "version". Version naming/numbering depends on how good it turns out to be, and competition. If the competition releases something then you need to push something out too.

Calling it 5.6 creates the least possible expectations, and therefore more potential for positive feedback.

The Sol/Terra/Luna naming is interesting. I wonder what Anthropic are considering for their next models? "Terminator", "Armageddon"?

Heliopause

You gotta check out the new ChatGPT 6.3 Betelgeuse bro

If they called it 6.0 and it wasn't AGI, you'd see a lot of complaining here too

What is AGI? (I know what the shortcut expands to, I'm curious about your definition. Don't the current models fit?)

LLM devs can't do version control

Honestly LLMs are the ideal candidate for CalVer. It’s not like there’s any real API so there’s no backwards compatibility to maintain.

Even Apple adopted and standardized on it for their latest platform releases.

LLM versioning is entirely feelings driven. The ideal versioning is probably just names.

I think it makes more sense to make it so that major versions are different pretraining runs, and minor versions are simply the same pretraining run that was finetuned to different degrees. But it seems that that isn't cool anymore.

Some assume it was to try to slip under the radar and avoid being limited by the government as they did with Fable.

By all appearances, they did not succeed in doing so.

Because if it sucks, they can just default to "It was a minor version change anyways"

They could hold the GPT-6 name for the IPO

Semantic is passé, word models moved to the next generation.

vibe versioning

To be fair, versioning has always been vibes based.