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.”
Chandrasekhar was a good friend of my father and from my childhood I remember Chandrasekhar and his wife being super-nice people. Thanks for sharing the story about his two students.
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.
> At the current ~$0.70 / bitcoin, this means that every American will be able to have ~$0.05 in his or her electronic wallet, once all bitcoins are generated. Assuming that the rest of the world does not participate at all and that bitcoins are evenly distributed.
> Sure, you could imagine an instant dollar-to-bitcoin-to-dollar conversion at the point of payment. Or you could imagine a bitcoin2.org that generates more coins. Or you could hope for a massive surge in the value of the bitcoin.
> I'd put my money on Paypal sticking around, though.
Even back that people pointed out the obvious flaw of Bitcoin remaining at $0.70. But I wonder if any of them believed it would be at $100,000 in 14 years
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
OpenAI was started with the express goal of undermining Google's potential lead in AI. The fact that they time launches to Google launches to me indicates they still see this as a meaningful risk. And with this launch in particular I find their fears more well-founded than ever.
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?
Honestly I don't recall exactly because it's been so long since I set it up. I think I did something to make it hard to export/convert to doc/docx, and maybe even prevent or make it hard to copy test for certain blocks. It was just using some tracks for things you can do with the pdf format, but I don't have more information at the moment.
I'll try and dig in later and see what I actually did.
“ 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