First, applicant argues that the mark is not merely descriptive because consumers will not immediately
understand what the underlying wording “generative pre-trained transformer” means. The trademark
examining attorney is not convinced. The previously and presently attached Internet evidence
demonstrates the extensive and pervasive use in applicant’s software industry of the acronym “GPT” in
connection with software that features similar AI technology with ask and answer functions based on
pre-trained data sets; the fact that consumers may not know the underlying words of the acronym does
not alter the fact that relevant purchasers are adapted to recognizing that the term “GPT” is commonly
used in connection with software to identify a particular type of software that features this AI ask and
answer technology. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
Putting aside the merits of trying to trademark gpt, which like the examiner says is commonly used term for a specific type of AI (there are other open source “gpt” models that have nothing to do with OpenAI), I just wanted to take a moment to appreciate how incredibly bad OpenAI is at naming things. Google has Bard and now Gemini.Microsoft has copilot. Anthropic has Claude (which does sound like the name of an idiot, so not a great example). Voice assistants were Google Assistant, Alexa, seri, and Bixby.
Then openai is like ChatGPT. Rolls right off the tounge, so easy to remember, definitely feels like a personable assistant. And then they follow that up with custom “GPTs”, which is not only an unfriendly name, but also confusing. If I try to use ChatGPT to help me make a GPT it gets confused and we end up in a “who’s on first” style standoff. I’ve reported to just forcing ChatGPT to do a websearch for “custom GPT” so I don’t have to explain the concept to it each time.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Putting aside the merits of trying to trademark gpt, which like the examiner says is commonly used term for a specific type of AI (there are other open source “gpt” models that have nothing to do with OpenAI), I just wanted to take a moment to appreciate how incredibly bad OpenAI is at naming things. Google has Bard and now Gemini.Microsoft has copilot. Anthropic has Claude (which does sound like the name of an idiot, so not a great example). Voice assistants were Google Assistant, Alexa, seri, and Bixby.
Then openai is like ChatGPT. Rolls right off the tounge, so easy to remember, definitely feels like a personable assistant. And then they follow that up with custom “GPTs”, which is not only an unfriendly name, but also confusing. If I try to use ChatGPT to help me make a GPT it gets confused and we end up in a “who’s on first” style standoff. I’ve reported to just forcing ChatGPT to do a websearch for “custom GPT” so I don’t have to explain the concept to it each time.
Most of OpenAI as a company right now looks like someone who accidentally found themselves on a raging bull and is desperately trying to hold onto it.
It’s beyond disappointing to see the leading AI company tripping over itself to cater to ‘chatbot’ usecases for their tech over everything else.
It’s a nightmare to search for anything about GUID Partition Tables (GPT) now.
GPT is GUID Partition Table, some of us are old and know old things.
/waves old man cane at the sky cursing the changing world