51–60 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a great bicycle It's not. Sorry. Go look at some real bicycles for reference.
What part is missing? It appears to have all the core parts of a bicycle to me?
* I am not an expert in pelican anatomy, but it appears that the bicycle's saddle, if present, would be very deeply inside this pelican (try drawing it onto the frame, and see what you get). Let's be kind, and assume that the seat is simply missing.
* The crown on the fork[1] is missing. The fork is not separate from the frame; so you can't turn the front wheel.
* Neither of pelican's feet are on the pedals (the left foot appears to be missing altogether)
* The wheels are way too small for that frame.
Note: Brakes and gears are nowhere to be seen, but OK, let's just assume it's a fixie (or a single-speed with a coaster brake). Let's also assume the red thing on the basket is there for decoration.
Also, the spokes on a typical bicycle wheel follow a cross-lacing pattern [2], at an angle to the radial direction, and you can see them crossing each other. But OK, let's let that slide.
My point is: sure, this thing at least passes as a bicycle. But it's not a good bicycle drawing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a great bicycle It's not. Sorry. Go look at some real bicycles for reference.
This is a very reasonable drawing of a bicycle. It has a solid rear triangle, and forward swept front fork, which is an important detail for actually being able to steer the bike. The drivetrain is single speed, but that's fine, and the wheels are radially laced, which is also fine: both of those simplified details are things which occur in real bicycles.
Reasonable? Sure. Great? Absolutely not.
Let's not move the goal posts here.
> and forward swept front fork, which is an important detail for actually being able to steer the bike.
...but no crown or any sort of indication that the fork is separate from the frame, making it impossible to steer. Yay.
> the drivetrain is single speed, but that's fine, and the wheels are radially laced, which is also fine: both of those simplified details are things which occur in real bicycles.
Sure! Now do the bicycle saddle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What part is missing? It appears to have all the core parts of a bicycle to me?
> What part is missing? It appears to have all the core parts of a bicycle to me? * I am not an expert in pelican anatomy, but it appears that the bicycle's saddle, if present, would be very deeply inside this pelican (try drawing it onto the frame, and see what you get). Let's be kind, and assume that the seat is simply missing. * The crown on the fork[1] is missing. The fork is not separate from the frame; so you c…
Simon notes this benchmark is win-win, since he loves pictures of pelicans riding bicycles — if they spend time benchmaxxing it’s like free pelicans for him. He originally promised to generate a bunch more animals when we got a “good” pelican. This is not a good pelican. This is an OUTSTANDING pelican, a great bicycle, and it even has a little sun ray over the ocean marked out. I’d like to see more animals please Sim…
Agreed, good is quite an understatement. Every item is drawn superbly, and the basket with the fish is just great. Feels like a big jump over the other models (though granted, this is such a known "benchmark" by now, it's likely gamed to some extent).
SVG generation is a surprisingly good benchmark for spatial reasoning because it forces the model to work in a coordinate system with no visual feedback loop. You have to hold a mental model of what the output looks like while emitting raw path data and transforms. It's closer to how a blind sculptor works than how an image diffusion model works. What I find interesting is that Deep Think's chain-of-thought approach…
It’ll be interesting to see what happens if a candidate ever shows up and wants to use Deep Think. Might blow right through my exercise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What part is missing? It appears to have all the core parts of a bicycle to me?
> What part is missing? It appears to have all the core parts of a bicycle to me? * I am not an expert in pelican anatomy, but it appears that the bicycle's saddle, if present, would be very deeply inside this pelican (try drawing it onto the frame, and see what you get). Let's be kind, and assume that the seat is simply missing. * The crown on the fork[1] is missing. The fork is not separate from the frame; so you c…
I don't think this is a good "benchmark" anymore. It's probably on everyone's training set by now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What part is missing? It appears to have all the core parts of a bicycle to me? * I am not an expert in pelican anatomy, but it appears that the bicycle's saddle, if present, would be very deeply inside this pelican (try drawing it onto the frame, and see what you get). Let's be kind, and assume that the seat is simply missing. * The crown on the fork[1] is missing. The fork is not separate from the frame; so you c…
I just think this is insanely pedantic. Most art is not photorealistic, and in fact imo having a crown on the fork may very well make this image worse by taking away from the aesthetic.
It's just not what makes a great bicycle picture.
Also, that bicycle's seatpost must be outright penetrating that pelican's cloaca.
You can say I'm being anal about it, and you'll have a point. But it's not that pedantic to notice it.