We're in the middle of a massive and unprecedented boom in AI capabilities. It is hard to be upset about this phrasing - it is literally true and extremely accurate.
Most things aren't in a massive boom and most people aren't that involved in AI. This is a rare example of great communication in marketing - they're telling people who might not be across this field what is going on.
> Why would they publish a model that is not their most advanced model?
I dunno, I'm not sitting in the OpenAI meetings. That is why they need to tell us what they are doing - it is easy to imagine them releasing something that isn't their best model ever and so they clarify that this is, in fact, the new hotness.
(Shrug) It's common for less-than-foundation-level models to be released every so often. This is done in order to provide new options, features, pricing, service levels, APIs or whatever that aren't yet incorporated into the main model, or that are never intended to be.
Just a consequence of how much time and money it takes to train a new foundation model. It's not going to happen every other week. When it does, it is reasonable to announce it with "Announcing our most powerful model yet."
o3 mini wasn't so much a most advanced model, as it was incredibly affordable for the IQ it was presenting at the time. Sometimes it's about efficiency and not being on the frontier.
It kind of is, the iPhone 16e isn’t the best even though it’s the latest, right? Or are we rating best by price/performance, not pure performance (I don’t even know if the 16e would be best there)?
Apple isn't really the best software company and though they were early to digital assistants with Siri, it seems like they've let it languish. It's almost comical how bad Siri is given the capabilities of modern AI. That being said, Android doesn't really have a great builtin solution for this either.
Apple is more of a hardware company. Still, Cook does have a few big wins under his belt: M-series ARM chips on Macs, Airpods, Apple watch, Apple pay.
Maybe people also caught up to the fact that the "our most X product" for Apple usually means someone else already did X a long time ago and Apple is merely jumping on the wagon.
Maybe it’s not useless. 1) it’s only comparing it to their own products and 2) it’s useful to know that the product is the current best in their offering as opposed to a new product that might offer new functionality but isn’t actually their most advanced.
Which is especially relevant when it's not obvious which product is the latest and best just looking at the names. Lots of tech naming fails this test from Xbox (Series X vs S) to OpenAI model names (4o vs o1-pro).
Here they claim 4o is their most capable image generator which is useful info. Especially when multiple models in their dropdown list will generate images for you.
Speaking as someone who'd love to not speak that way in my own marketing - it's an unfortunate necessity in a world where people will give you literal milliseconds of their time. Marketing isn't there to tell you about the thing, it's there to get you to want to know more about the thing.
A term for people giving only milliseconds of their attention is: uninterested people. If I’m not looking for a project planner, or interested in the space, there’s no wording that can make me stay on an announcement for one. If I am, you can be sure I’m going to read the whole feature page.
No, everybody uses marketing because it's a conventional bet. It has proven in many cases to not be effective, but people aren't willing to risk getting fired because they suggested going against the grain.
Then google:
> Gemini 2.5: Our most intelligent AI model
> Introducing Gemini 2.0 | Our most capable AI model yet
I could go on forever. I hope this trend dies and apple starts using something effective so all the other companies can start copying a new lexicon.