91–100 of 593 posts
The Chinese are so much ahead in this space, their models are way better at this stuff. For example, https://hunyuan.tencent.com/image/en?tabIndex=0 and https://seed.bytedance.com/en/seedream5_0_lite
we have user-preference rankings that put NB2 on top: https://arena.ai/leaderboard/text-to-image
I think this tech is cool, from an engineering perspective. I’m trying to figure out if there’s any justification for using it in a business world outside of: “We don’t want to pay an artist.” You can argue things like code generation are an extension of the engineer wielding it. Image generation just seems like a net negative overall if it’s used at scale. Edit: By scale, I mean large corporations putting content in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>fake OF models Soon many real OF models will be out of job when everyone will be able to produce content to their personal taste from a few prompts.
And they might have to gasp! get an honest job!
I'm building my personal home right now. The AI image models have been a game-changer in designing the look of the house. My architect did an OK job, but the details that Nano Banana added really bring the house up a notch. I just do hundreds of renders from the basic 3D models and I find looks that I like and iterate from there. We are implementing the renders from Nano Banana over our Interior Designers designs. We…
Part of the job of interior design is delivering the promised images in … yknow, physical reality? How are you going from nano banana images to actual plans, materials, finishes, products, paint codes, … ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like the complete opposite is true. Artists aren't doing it for the money. With advanced tools like these they wouldve iterated much faster and created much grander designs. Art is about pushing limits of what's possible and AI just raises those limits.
> Art is about pushing limits of what's possible That's engineering, if that. Art isn't, and has never been about that.
The Chinese are so much ahead in this space, their models are way better at this stuff. For example, https://hunyuan.tencent.com/image/en?tabIndex=0 and https://seed.bytedance.com/en/seedream5_0_lite
Kind of a pointless comment without a link to such a model.
- https://hunyuan.tencent.com/image/en?tabIndex=0
- https://seed.bytedance.com/en/seedream5_0_lite
someone shared benchmarks that differ my experience tho, so I may be biased
I'm building my personal home right now. The AI image models have been a game-changer in designing the look of the house. My architect did an OK job, but the details that Nano Banana added really bring the house up a notch. I just do hundreds of renders from the basic 3D models and I find looks that I like and iterate from there. We are implementing the renders from Nano Banana over our Interior Designers designs. We…
Like... What are your inputs to the model? Empty renders of the space, or more fully decorated views/ photos? Do you have a light harness around this to help you discover the style you like and then stay consistent with it?
Do you find that giving a lot of context around the space you're designing helps (it hasn't in my attempts)?
I think this tech is cool, from an engineering perspective. I’m trying to figure out if there’s any justification for using it in a business world outside of: “We don’t want to pay an artist.” You can argue things like code generation are an extension of the engineer wielding it. Image generation just seems like a net negative overall if it’s used at scale. Edit: By scale, I mean large corporations putting content in…
I'm torn on the scale thing. It definitely seems net negative. But I think we collectively underestimate just how deeply sick the existing thing already is. We're repulsed by image gen at scale because it breaks our expectation that images are at least somewhat based on reality, that they reflect the natural world or what we can really expect from a product, from a company, from the future. But that was already a bad expectation: when's the last time you saw a mcdonalds meal that looked like the advert? Or a sub-30$ amazon product that wasn't a complete piece of shit? Advertisements were already actively malicious fantasies to exploit the way our brains react to pictures. They're just fantasies that required whole teams of humans doing weird bullshit with lighting and photoshop, and I'm not sure that's much better. It was already slop. All the grieving we do about the loss of truth, or the extent to which corps will gleefully spray us with mind-breaking waterfalls of outright lies, I think those ships sailed a long time ago. The disgust, deceit, the rage we feel about genAI slop is the way we should have felt about all commercials since at least the 80s IMO.
The "cubism" example seems like it would be a closer fit to something like stained glass or something. I don't think the thing really understands what cubism was all about. Cubist painters were trying to free themselves from the confines of a single integral plane of perspective by allowing themselves to show various parts of the image from different viewpoints, different times, different styles, etc.
The division of the image into geometric shapes is just a by-product of that quest, whereas the examples here have made it the sum total of the whole piece.
This feels to me like an example of how LLMs still don't "understand" what the art means, and are just aping its facade.