Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Using “underdrawings” for accurate text and numbers

samcollins.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 140 posts

Re: Using “underdrawings” for accurate text and numbers

#81

Post by HotHotLava »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #79
IdiotSavage wrote: post #61

> Transform this image into a photographed claymation diorama of assorted artisan chocolates and candies […] viewed from a low-angle Side note: whenever I read prompts for image generation, I notice very specific details which the model obviously ignored. Here the chocolates / candies in the last two images look anything but artisanal. They look very "sterile" and mass-produced. The viewing angle is also not accurate…

I wonder how long it took to come up with all this? Because if I wanted a spiral of little "buttons" like the last one at the end (and they don't look very much like sweets) I'd be able to knock that out in Blender in an afternoon, and I'm not very good at Blender.

I think you're vastly overestimating the average persons ability to use Blender if you can do that in an afternoon; just figuring out how to place a colored cube and the camera probably takes an afternoon if you pick up Blender for the first time.

Re: Using “underdrawings” for accurate text and numbers

#82

Post by ryanthedev »

IdiotSavage wrote: post #61

> Transform this image into a photographed claymation diorama of assorted artisan chocolates and candies […] viewed from a low-angle Side note: whenever I read prompts for image generation, I notice very specific details which the model obviously ignored. Here the chocolates / candies in the last two images look anything but artisanal. They look very "sterile" and mass-produced. The viewing angle is also not accurate…

I believe most detailed prompts are AI generated.

Re: Using “underdrawings” for accurate text and numbers

#83

Post by Al-Khwarizmi »

utopiah wrote: post #72

Love the concluding note : it works, but not really. So LLM/GenAI crave. An entire article to show that it's nearly there, yet it's not, despite convoluted effort to make it just so on a very very niche example.

But if it works part of the time, it's useful. It's easy for a human to check that the numbers are correct, and if they aren't, just regenerate the image. Orders of magnitude easier than creating the image from scratch without the model.

Re: Using “underdrawings” for accurate text and numbers

#84

Post by ErroneousBosh »

HotHotLava wrote: post #81
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how long it took to come up with all this? Because if I wanted a spiral of little "buttons" like the last one at the end (and they don't look very much like sweets) I'd be able to knock that out in Blender in an afternoon, and I'm not very good at Blender.

I think you're vastly overestimating the average persons ability to use Blender if you can do that in an afternoon; just figuring out how to place a colored cube and the camera probably takes an afternoon if you pick up Blender for the first time.

I guess I'm coming at it from having used Blender for an afternoon or so, and already knowing Python.

If you were good at GLSL you could do it in that maybe.

Someone somewhere is going to write something that directly draws it to a framebuffer in Brainfuck, you just know it, don't you?

Re: Using “underdrawings” for accurate text and numbers

#85

Post by coldtea »

p-e-w wrote: post #63
coldtea wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People keep throwing this phrase around in relation to LLMs, when not a single “fundamental limitation” has been rigorously demonstrated to exist Some limitations are not rigorously demonstrated to be fundamental, but continuously present from the first early LLMs yes. Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who say it can be done? And some limitations are fundamental, and have been rigorously demonstrated, e.g.:…

That paper’s abstract doesn’t carry its title, to put it mildly.

What part of "Specifically, we define a formal world where hallucination is defined as inconsistencies between a computable LLM and a computable ground truth function. By employing results from learning theory, we show that LLMs cannot learn all the computable functions and will therefore inevitably hallucinate if used as general problem solvers. " doesn't carry the title, to ask mildly?

Re: Using “underdrawings” for accurate text and numbers

#86

Post by 3form »

p-e-w wrote: post #25
danpalmer wrote: post #6

I'm glad that we're making progress towards a deeper understanding of what LLMs are inherently good at and what they're inherently bad at (not to say incapable of doing, but stuff that is less likely to work due to fundamental limitations). There's similarity here with, for example, defining the architecture of software, but letting an LLM write the functions. Or asking an LLM to write you the SQL query for your data…

> due to fundamental limitations People keep throwing this phrase around in relation to LLMs, when not a single “fundamental limitation” has been rigorously demonstrated to exist, and many tasks that were claimed to be impossible for LLMs two years ago supposedly due to “fundamental limitations” (e.g. character counting or phonetics) are non-issues for them today even without tools.

Your comment, after removing the particulars, has a shape of:

People have an which hasn't been rigorously proven, while .

As such, I am not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

Re: Using “underdrawings” for accurate text and numbers

#87

Post by IdiotSavage »

ryanthedev wrote: post #82
IdiotSavage wrote: post #61

> Transform this image into a photographed claymation diorama of assorted artisan chocolates and candies […] viewed from a low-angle Side note: whenever I read prompts for image generation, I notice very specific details which the model obviously ignored. Here the chocolates / candies in the last two images look anything but artisanal. They look very "sterile" and mass-produced. The viewing angle is also not accurate…

I believe most detailed prompts are AI generated.

That's funny if it's true. I'd like to see the prompt which generates the prompt.

Re: Using “underdrawings” for accurate text and numbers

#88

Post by outofpaper »

girvo wrote: post #74
p-e-w wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> due to fundamental limitations People keep throwing this phrase around in relation to LLMs, when not a single “fundamental limitation” has been rigorously demonstrated to exist, and many tasks that were claimed to be impossible for LLMs two years ago supposedly due to “fundamental limitations” (e.g. character counting or phonetics) are non-issues for them today even without tools.

The literal best public models still fail to count characters consistently in practice so I’m not sure what you mean. It’s literally a problem we’re still trying to solve at work

What's amazing is that they even can fairly reliably appear to count characters. I mean we're talking about systems that infer sequences not character counters or calculators. They are amazing in unrelated ways and we need to accept this so we can use them effectively.

Re: Using “underdrawings” for accurate text and numbers

#89

Post by manmal »

Finbel wrote: post #16
manmal wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the original stable diffusion app had image 2 image. It just didn’t work as well. I‘m not sure why this is supposed to be novel.

It's not novel in the sense that nobody knew about img2img. It's novel in the sense that nobody thought of using img2img to solve this problem in this way.

Ok it might just be me then. I view Nvidia‘s DLSS as a similar thing. There was even this meme that video games will in the future only output basic geometry and the AI layer transforms it into stunning graphics.

Re: Using “underdrawings” for accurate text and numbers

#90

Post by Brendinooo »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #79
IdiotSavage wrote: post #61

> Transform this image into a photographed claymation diorama of assorted artisan chocolates and candies […] viewed from a low-angle Side note: whenever I read prompts for image generation, I notice very specific details which the model obviously ignored. Here the chocolates / candies in the last two images look anything but artisanal. They look very "sterile" and mass-produced. The viewing angle is also not accurate…

I wonder how long it took to come up with all this? Because if I wanted a spiral of little "buttons" like the last one at the end (and they don't look very much like sweets) I'd be able to knock that out in Blender in an afternoon, and I'm not very good at Blender.

I remember opening Blender for the first time years ago and thinking it had the steepest learning curve of any software I'd ever used.
Post reply on HN