My general rules or thoughts around naming projects is to avoid trying to give them a name that describes what the project is. The problem is mainly that you end up with lock-in and lose control over how your project is perceived.
People are very good at taking the name of something and using that to build a model of what they think the project is. We have this problem with AI Safety Support and the word “camp” in “AI Safety Camp” has caused confusion too. When talking to people about what we do we have to remove their beliefs in what we do before building up a more accurate picture.
OpenAI has big problems with this in that outsiders have their own model of what the founders were thinking when they came up with the name. They are often criticised for not living up to their name.
I’d prefer a mostly meaningless name where people have to ask what you do and you get to control the message. People start with a blank slate with no misconceptions that you have to deal with first. You get to build up the picture of what you do your own way. My default example of this is “Uber” which you would have a hard time coming up with your own picture of what they do. I also really like “Redwood Research” they obviously do research but I struggle to come up with an assumption of what that could be.
There are of course plenty of exceptions where a descriptive name is appropriate. This seems to be the default though and it is worth questioning. If you are struggling to come up with a name that you are really happy with and confident it describes your vision then consider a less descriptive name.
On Naming Projects
My general rules or thoughts around naming projects is to avoid trying to give them a name that describes what the project is. The problem is mainly that you end up with lock-in and lose control over how your project is perceived.
People are very good at taking the name of something and using that to build a model of what they think the project is. We have this problem with AI Safety Support and the word “camp” in “AI Safety Camp” has caused confusion too. When talking to people about what we do we have to remove their beliefs in what we do before building up a more accurate picture.
OpenAI has big problems with this in that outsiders have their own model of what the founders were thinking when they came up with the name. They are often criticised for not living up to their name.
I’d prefer a mostly meaningless name where people have to ask what you do and you get to control the message. People start with a blank slate with no misconceptions that you have to deal with first. You get to build up the picture of what you do your own way. My default example of this is “Uber” which you would have a hard time coming up with your own picture of what they do. I also really like “Redwood Research” they obviously do research but I struggle to come up with an assumption of what that could be.
There are of course plenty of exceptions where a descriptive name is appropriate. This seems to be the default though and it is worth questioning. If you are struggling to come up with a name that you are really happy with and confident it describes your vision then consider a less descriptive name.