This progress bodes well for my chances of visualizing an invention I have been working on, a perpetual burrito extruding machine
let me know when you're in preseed
The Generative Burrito Test
21–30 of 56 posts
Re: The Generative Burrito Test
#22One of my tests for new image generation models is professional food photography, particularly in cases where the food has constraints, such as "a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in the shape of a Rubik’s cube" (blog post from 2022 for DALL-E 2: https://minimaxir.com/2022/07/food-photography-ai/ )
For some reason ever since DALL-E 2, all food models seem to generate obviously fake food and/or misinterpret the fun constraints...until Nano Banana. Now I can generate fractal Sierpiński triangle peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
Re: The Generative Burrito Test
#23I like how a couple of these basically show the model is confused between pinto beans and baked beans.
Re: The Generative Burrito Test
#24Is no one going to mention fast Lightning’s sploogerito
Re: The Generative Burrito Test
#25An interesting American culinary divide is between Scottsdale and Phoenix homemade burritos. The former being close to the Midwest variety, the latter to a Sonoran style. Even ignoring the Heinz bean outliers, these are all decidedly Scottsdale. With one exception. All hail Nano Banana.
They all just look like generic Mission burritos to me (leaning towards fast food menu photos), except some include lettuce and some have blisters sonoran style. Only Nano Banana really looks like something I'd get at El Farolito or an LA food truck.
Re: The Generative Burrito Test
#26Oh wow, I've been hearing about Nano Banana Pro in random stuff lately, but as a layman the difference is stark. It's the only one that actually looks like a partially eaten burrito at all to me. The others all look like staged marketing fake food, if I'm being generous (only a few actually approach that, most just look wrong).
The NBP looks like a mock of food to me - the unwrapped burrito on a single piece of intact tinfoil, a table where the grain goes all wonky, an almost pastry looking tortilla, hyperrealistic beans and there's something wrong with the focal plane.
It's just not as plasticy and oversaturated as the others.
Re: The Generative Burrito Test
#27With llms there is a secondary training step to turn a foundational model into a chat bot. Is these something similar going on with these image generation models, that is making them all tend towards making pretty clean images and stopping them making half eaten food even if they have the capabilities?
Re: The Generative Burrito Test
#28I find it a bit surprising GenAI has made it this far without this benchmark
Re: The Generative Burrito Test
#29Oh wow, I've been hearing about Nano Banana Pro in random stuff lately, but as a layman the difference is stark. It's the only one that actually looks like a partially eaten burrito at all to me. The others all look like staged marketing fake food, if I'm being generous (only a few actually approach that, most just look wrong).
This shows some gaps in the "same prompt to every model" approach to benchmarking models.
I get that it's allows ensuring you're testing the model capabilities vs prompts, but most models are being post-trained with very different formats of prompting.
I use Seedream in production so I was a little suspicious of the gap: I passed Bytedance's official prompting guide, OPs prompt, and your feedback to Claude Opus 4.5 and got this prompt to create a new image:
> A partially eaten chicken burrito with a bite taken out, revealing the fillings inside: shredded cheese, sour cream, guacamole, shredded lettuce, salsa, and pinto beans all visible in the cross-section of the burrito. Flour tortilla with grill marks. Taken with a cheap Android phone camera under harsh cafeteria lighting. Compostable paper plate, plastic fork, messy table. Casual unedited snapshot, slightly overexposed, flat colors.
Then I generated with n=4 and the 'standard' prompt expansion setting for Seedream 4.0 Text To Image:
They're still not perfect (it's not adhering to the fillings being inside for example) but it's massively better than OP's result
Shows that a) random chance plays a big part, so you want more than 1 sample and b) you don't have to "cheat" by spending massive amounts of time hand-iterating on a single prompt either to get a better result
Re: The Generative Burrito Test
#30they are all very good...