What’s In A Name? Nothing If It’s AI

The Great Naming Investigation

It started with a simple chat between the Wizard and Sir Redundant III about putting AI names on merchandise. “Perhaps,” Sir R suggested (three times, naturally), “we should look into whether we can actually use these names.”

Fair point. And since no one at LNNA does anything halfway, what began as a quick Google search turned into a fascinating descent into tech giant chaos. The Wizard’s first discovery set the tone for everything that would follow: Google itself apparently forgot to Google “Gemini” before rebranding Bard. Now they’re being sued over the name – a tech giant that literally owns the world’s most popular search engine somehow missed checking if their new AI’s name was already taken. Jojo, the Wizard’s trusted Canine companion, looked up from his treat hunt long enough to catch the Wizard’s incredulous laugh, and the investigation was off to the races.

Down The AI Naming Rabbit Hole

Each new search revealed another layer of corporate chaos. The Wizard soon discovered that tech giants, despite their vast resources and supposedly cutting-edge AI, somehow missed the most basic steps in naming their products. It was as if these companies had collectively decided that conventional business practices like trademark searches were beneath their innovative spirits.

The LLaMA Legacy

Take Meta’s contribution to the naming chaos. LLaMA – intended to evoke the gentle, pack-carrying animal of the Andes. A peaceful creature known for its soft wool and calm demeanor. Except, as the Wizard discovered, it’s also modern slang for weapons, particularly firearms. Because nothing says “trust our AI” quite like accidental weapons references. Though given how some developers have used their open-source model, perhaps it was less accident and more prophecy.

The Grok Chronicles

Next came Grok, proudly wearing the name of Heinlein’s concept for deep empathy and understanding – for an AI specifically designed to be provocative. The Wizard had to appreciate the layers of irony here: naming an intentionally confrontational AI after a term meaning “to understand completely and empathetically.” It was like naming a bouncer “Cuddles” or a guard dog “Marshmallow.”

The ChatGPT Confusion

Then there was OpenAI’s contribution to the naming chaos – ChatGPT. At first glance, it seems like the most straightforward choice in a field of exotic AI names. But the Wizard dug deeper. Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer – a name so technical it could be a new Transformer movie character, a secret military code, or perhaps a particularly ambitious garage band.

When someone asks “What’s GPT?”, they’re unknowingly opening a rabbit hole of machine learning architecture explanations that would make Captain Verbose proud. It’s as if OpenAI decided that if they couldn’t have a trademark issue like Google or an ironic meaning like Grok, they’d settle for a name that sounds both boring and confusing at the same time. The Wizard had to admire the commitment – they managed to choose a name that’s simultaneously too simple and too complex.

The Claude Conundrum

The Wizard’s research uncovered a delightful irony in Claude’s naming. Derived from Latin, meaning both “strong-willed” and “lame or crippled” – it was accidentally the perfect description for an AI that confidently starts responses it may never finish. An AI so helpful it needs to confirm if you want it to continue helping, and so thorough it hits its message limit explaining why it hit its message limit.

Team Reactions

When the Wizard finally called a team meeting to share these discoveries, the responses were exactly what you’d expect from the LNNA crew:

Captain Verbose launched into a 47-slide presentation on “The Sociological Implications of Artificial Intelligence Naming Conventions in the Modern Technological Landscape: A Comprehensive Analysis of Corporate Decision-Making Processes and Their Unintended Consequences.” Three slides in, everyone was reconsidering their life choices.

Sir Redundant III helpfully repeated each finding. And then repeated them again. And one more time, just to be sure everyone had fully grasped the repeated repetition of his repetitious points.

Professor Perhaps calculated a 73.2% probability that no AI company has ever done a trademark search, with an undefined margin of error, though they were 82.6% certain about being uncertain of their certainty levels.

Corporal Chameleon changed their opinion on each name at least twice during the discussion, eventually settling on seven different final positions simultaneously.

And Mr. Starts & Stops began to share his thoughts but…

Message limit reached. Please check back in 3 hours.

*distant sound of glasses being adjusted*

As the team wrapped up their findings, Jojo performed his signature ‘I have no idea what’s happening but I definitely deserve a treat’ dance – a perfect metaphor for the entire LNNA article creation process.

The AI Name Game

The deeper the Wizard looked, the clearer it became: AI companies, in their rush to brand their next big thing, had collectively decided that due diligence was for lesser mortals. It was as if they’d thrown darts at a dictionary while blindfolded, then acted surprised when they hit something they shouldn’t have.

Not that LNNA was immune to naming adventures. ‘Logic Optional’ and ‘AI Nonsense’ were early contenders before the team remembered: humor first, logic later. Sometimes the best name comes from embracing the chaos rather than fighting it.

Logic to Apply

In a world where tech giants can’t manage basic trademark searches, where peaceful pack animals become weapon references, and where concepts of deep empathy name confrontational AIs, the Wizard reached one inescapable conclusion: LNNA had chosen its name perfectly. Because when it comes to AI companies naming their products, Logic Need Not Apply.

If AI naming were a sport, it would be called ‘Trademark Dodgeball’ – everyone’s throwing names, hoping they won’t get hit with a lawsuit.

Just remember to check your trademarks. And always keep dog treats handy – Jojo’s law of snack entropy states that the importance of any discovery is directly proportional to the number of treats required to complete the research.