[dead]
ChatGPT Images 2.0
561–570 of 1001 posts
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#562This seems like a great time to mention C2PA, a specification for positively affirming image sources. OpenAI participates in this, and if I load an image I had AI generate in a C2PA Viewer it shows ChatGPT as the source. Bad actors can strip sources out so it's a normal image (that's why it's positive affirmation), but eventually we should start flagging images with no source attribution as dangerous the way we flag…
What a dystopian, pro-tyranny ask. Horrifying.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#563So during my Nano Banana Pro experiments I wrote a very fun prompt that tests the ability for these image generation models to follow heuristics, but still requires domain knowledge and/or use of the search tool: Create a 8x8 contiguous grid of the Pokémon whose National Pokédex numbers correspond to the first 64 prime numbers. Include a black border between the subimages. You MUST obey ALL the FOLLOWING rules for th…
Prob a very unscientific way to test an image model. This would me likely because they have the reasoning turned down and let its instant output takeover
This is the best kind of science there is: direct, empirical test.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#564"Benchmarks" aside, do anyone actually use these image models for anything?
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
"Quirky and obscure" has the functional benefit of ensuring the source question is not in the training data/outside the median user prompt, and therefore making the model less likely to cheat. We have enough people complaining about Simon Willison's pelican test.
When you program, do you consider using your prior knowledge of programming cheating?
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#566"Benchmarks" aside, do anyone actually use these image models for anything?
MAGA to show how terrible Europe is ;)
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#567Earlier quoted context omitted.
Damn. There’s a fun game app to make here ^^
Is there? The moment you look closely at the puzzle (which is... the whole point of Where's Waldo), you notice all the deformities and errors.
Yes, it’s not there yet. But nothing unsolvable. First thing that comes to mind would be generating smaller portion at the same resolution, then expand through tiling (although one might need to use another service & model for this), like we used to do with Stable Diffusion years ago.
Another option would be generating these large images, splitting them into grids, and using inpainting on each "tile" to improve the details. Basically the reverse of the first one.
Both significantly increase costs, but for the second one having what Images 2.0 can produce as an input could help significantly improve the overall coherence.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I may address this with both skepticism and curiosity, why. I think I speak for everyone when I say I would pay to go back to facebook 2018. No algorithm, no ai.
Are you being sincere? This is one layer of irony too much for my brain to comprehend. The person you're replying to is making a joke about OpenAI shutting down Sora their video generation "social media" app recently.
You get it!
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#569Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you consider this a good prompt?
My observations have been that image generation is especially challenged when asked to do things that are unusual. The fewer instances of something happening it has to train on, the worse it tends to be. Watch repair done in water fits that well - is there a single image on the internet of someone repairing a watch that is partially submerged in water? It also tends to be bad at reflections and consistency of two obj…
[deleted]
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#570Here is my regular "hard prompt" I use for testing image gen models: "A macro close-up photograph of an old watchmaker's hands carefully replacing a tiny gear inside a vintage pocket watch. The watch mechanism is partially submerged in a shallow dish of clear water, causing visible refraction and light caustics across the brass gears. A single drop of water is falling from a pair of steel tweezers, captured mid-splas…
I mean, your prompt is basically this skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg ("The Expert" 7 red lines: all strictly perpendicular, some with green ink some with transparent ink)
I couldn't imagine the image you were describing. I've listed some of the red lines with green ink I've noticed in your prompt:
Macro Close Up - Sharp throughout
Focus on tiny gear - But also on tweezers, old watchmakers hand, water drop?
Work on the mechanism of the watch (on the back of the watch) - but show the curved glass of the watch face which is on the front
This is the biggest. Even if the mechanism is accessible from the front, you'd have to remove the glass to get to it. It just doesn't make sense and that reflects in the images you get generated. There's all the elements, but they will never make sense because the prompt doesn't make sense.