I'd agree it is similar to Anthropic's naming scheme, which I'd argue shares the same problems as this. It improves marketability/googlability, but decreases actual comprehension.
You don't actually explain why or how these names are "easy to understand" just state that they simply are. That's great; to me, they aren't obvious or intuitive at all. May have well just start randomly pointing at dictionary words.
> When do you use GPT-5.6-Max-Low vs. GPT-5.6-Plus High?
You don't, because that isn't something I proposed using for model naming.
I called them GPT-5.6-Max, GPT-5.6-Plus, and GPT-5.6-Fast. Reasoning levels are distinct from the model design itself, and the UI makes that clear.
Plus, using that same flawed argument this would be called GPT-5.6-Sol-Low or GPT-5.6-Luna-High which also makes no sense/is confusing. So that argument applies (or more accurately doesn't), no matter the model names.
That isn't what "genuinely asking" looks like, you're criticizing using "questions" as cover. It isn't subtle, nor is it constructive.
I agree with them, Sol, Terra, and Luna are confusing names. They mean the same thing as GPT-5.6-Max, GPT-5.6-Plus, and GPT-5.6-Fast but require base knowledge for an analogy.
It feels like it was adding by the marketing department.
I have my Chat personality settings stripped right down to no-fluff. I'd want voice to be more akin to the Star Trek computer, and less akin to as you said an AI friend, but previously it was tuned too personable/friend-like.
I consider reasoning to be a huge quality differentiator particularly for complex questions/medium+ length discussions.
Low-Thinking/non-Thinking absolutely has a place, but not in a tool like ChatGPT due to its very nature/designed purpose. Low-Thinking is useful in simple tasks/utilities where it is a straight 1:1 between the source and destination, like automated workflows.
ChatGPT Instant simply isn't worth using for the task they're assigning it. Medium Thinking is passable but High or better has a marked quality improvement/reduction in hallucinations.
Thinking isn't anything to do with logic/arithmetic/programming; it simply allows the LLM to spend longer deliberating/second-guessing itself, rather than looking for the shorter path to a supposed "answer." A LOT of mistakes get washed out in that second-guessing step (although of course mistakes can still occur YMMV). This lack of mistakes does make it better at logic/arithmetic/programming, but it also makes it better at everything else too.
I believe Google's Gemini gives you a handful of free Thinking credits a day, I'd give that a shot and I believe you'll see what I mean.
That edge case is certainly their official excuse.
Ultimately to determine the underlying root-cause you'd still need to dig this same information out, and all they've done is moved the starting line behind several walls. In essence adding extra work, without solving this edge case/issue.
Regardless of if the information is in the BSOD, Event Log, or only via WinDbg, understanding the information relies on the expertise of the person reviewing/contextualizing it. They've gone out of their way to make contextualizing it harder.
For example, to determine if it is a direct failure or an associative failure (e.g. RAM failing causing different BSODs in unrelated modules), you want that context to be obvious. But without the module being in the Event Logs, you're now loading up half a dozen MiniDumps in WinDbg to find that same very key information - which people may miss or fail to do.
What I am saying is: If we believe that excuse (which I don't), they've done absolutely nothing to address it and just made that same problem worse with their childish games.
For most here, I don't think this article contains new information.
The actual interesting discussion, to me, is why Microsoft won't show WHO is dangling the handle open when the user tries to interact with a file via Windows' UI. To understand that, we have to look at a BSOD change Microsoft made in Windows 8:
In Windows 2K, XP, Vista, and 7 the BSOD would tell you exactly WHO was causing your BSOD (i.e. which module). Which was incredibly helpful, when you could see it was a e.g. Creative sound driver, or Nvidia graphics driver. Then in Windows 8/8.1 they went to the "sad face" simplified BSOD screen. From then on in order to see which module it originated in, you had to load the mini-dump into WinDbg (which almost no users would/could do).
What I am saying is: Microsoft went out of their way to shield their partners (OEMs/hardware vendors) from criticism with that BSOD UI change. So it seems unlikely they'd make a change to the "File Locked" UI that would essentially do the same thing: Open up their partners to criticism for their [bad] software (e.g. anti-virus/anti-malware/corporate compliance/etc).
Then tack on that Microsoft's own software may be some misbehaving software; and they'd essentially be telling on themselves. OneDrive in particular, I've seen in that list a lot (but I could write paragraphs on what a turd/abandonware OneDrive is).
I just flagged this article, and want to explain my reasoning.
This is an unacceptable level of clickbait journalism. Nothing in the article's title is substantiated in the article's content, it doesn't break any of those three things, and the failures it does report are trivial (a dialog displays incorrectly, and a few devices have scattered reports of instability).
Microsoft has made a lot of mistakes in recent years, but this article isn't about them. We shouldn't invite in this level of clickbait even if it is popular to criticize Microsoft, because all it does is add noise to an otherwise very necessary discussion of MS's practices.
I wouldn't trust an "Excel guy" who said that, they aren't staying current/using new functionality.
Just off the top of my head:
IFNA, FORMULATEXT, DAYS, CONCAT, IFS, SWITCH, XLOOKUP/XMATCH, FILTER, UNIQUE, LET, TEXTBEFORE/TEXTAFTER, LAMBDA, et al.
But my favorite improvement is the "don't intentionally corrupt CSVs" options found in Settings -> Data -> Automatic Data Conversion (hint: Disable everything). Only took them 30-years to add that. Absolutely absurd these are enabled by default still.
Excel is one of Microsoft's best pieces of software and one of the very few they haven't turned into slop YET. Still don't understand why we don't have local-only Python to replace VBA at all license levels (i.e. non-cloud).
Which is why the UK Government is currently discussing restricting VPNs behind real-ID style verification too.
So all of the legit providers will be required to collect ID, and anyone not willing to will be funnelled onto the sketchy providers; which I'm sure won't backfire at all...
What disappointments me even more than the UK having these authoritarian polices, is that so many people seemingly support this.
Anonymity online is of course a double-edged sword, but we've seen the authorities, particularly but not exclusively, in the UK use intimidating tactics against those with unfavorable political views. Even when those views didn't break the law (e.g. no calls for violence).
If you also look at how nearly all the existing "verification" systems work, it is just a giant data drag-net, that is absolutely used to associate your real-ID with their advertising analytics. It isn't subtle. Which is why "big tech" (e.g. Meta, Google, Palantir) aren't far behind many proposals.
> They are losing money because they are training new models and building new data centers.
Neither of which ever goes away. These aren't short term costs, they're the costs of running their business, and it isn't profitable.
> The claim of the video is that they're losing money just serving current AI models.
Which is true. Every one is losing money, none are profitable. They're losing money serving current AI models.
> There's just no evidence of that.
Their own profit/loss statements are "evidence of that." According to these companies themselves, they're at a net loss every quarter. So it isn't clear what more "evidence" people need or expect.
OpenAI, Anthropic, and Microsoft/Meta/Google are all at a net negative on AI (i.e. they're "demonstrably" losing money). So it is objectively true. If everyone is losing money, and nobody is profitable, then it is a demonstrable fact.
As far as I know, the only "AI" venture currently in the green is Nvidia, and they're selling shovels to gold miners.
Many of us would love to, and the models are there, but we're constrained by heavily inflated hardware costs.
If big AI does crash out, it would be an absolute gold-mine for local LLM. Cheap, efficient, Nvidia GPUs, and RAM that can run the best local models already available, will be a real boon.
PS - And as great as Qwen3.6-27B is, how large you can scale it (i.e. how big of a context/project) is mostly hardware constrained.
So you say "It's the publishers" but you haven't really explained the mechanism of action?
Who writes the class syllabus? Nobody from the publishers does, professors and or departments do that. Maybe based on advice from collage admin. But it is all in-house. Ultimately the college picks the books, they're the gatekeepers.
Calling it "inertia" feels very dismissive; and isn't close to an explanation of why somehow Higher Ed Professionals share no responsibility.
The reason abusive textbook practices persists (i.e. instead of free/shared) is because students and parents direct their anger and complaints in the wrong direction.
Specifically, the people making you waste money with bi-yearly re-releases, one-time-codes, or $150 textbooks, isn't actually the publishing houses. It is the gatekeepers at your very school: professors, department heads, and or the administration. Publishers are acting in an immoral way, but publishers by themselves have no power to force you into this abusive relationship. Your school is the one enforcing this, and yet few students file complaints at their school about the situation, protest, or otherwise make it an issue at THAT level. The level where they actually have leverage, and their complaints are more likely to be taken seriously.
Instead accepting the financial relationship forced upon them, and complaining that they wish publishing houses were less abusive. Publishers actually have little to no power themselves to force you into giving them money, your school does. So start complaining loudly and often at the school level if you want to see change. Every single year, every single class.
You don't actually explain why or how these names are "easy to understand" just state that they simply are. That's great; to me, they aren't obvious or intuitive at all. May have well just start randomly pointing at dictionary words.