5 ms·

I was hoping for a chance to actuslly compare things like artistic license, stylistic choices, etc. But instead the author chose an absolutely terrible prompt.

I was hoping for a chance to actuslly compare things like artistic license, stylistic choices, etc. But instead the author chose an absolutely terrible prompt. AI image generation is not intended to generate graphs, and I'm surprised it was even able to do anything passable given how few it was probably trained on (if anything I'm more impressed with the AI than I was expecting to be). Please do this again with a better prompt.

darepublic 4y ago
Stop prompt blaming this guy. It's a legit experiment in my opinion
- bowsamic 4y ago
  Please explain why you think that, because I can’t possibly imagine what your justification is
  - ThalesX 4y ago
    Not GP but I did the same thing with trying to design a t-shirt… how is this not relevant? We’re trying to asses various tools to get our jobs done, not trying to create a peer reviewed scientific paper.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  An experiment is only a single part of the scientific method, and one can easily neglect the rest of the steps. This article doesn't start with inquiry or a hypothesis from the author. We just get data and "I told you so" at the bottom, which doesn't illustrate anything. It's funny that what we don't see is a shorter prompt. If you ran this experiment with just "A graph with 3 slightly wavy lines", maybe the difference between AI and human results would be closer. Maybe that's the basis for a legitimate research project, but it's frustrating that the author takes the ball to the 80-yard-line and just gives up.
  - sberens 4y ago
    Hmm did you read to the end of the post? Because I included a section showing the results on "a graph with 3 lines."
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      You're right, I shouldn't have bailed after the first few paragraphs. Sorry about that :p
- duskwuff 4y ago
  And it's a legit criticism. There are three major issues I see here: 1) The prompt uses fairly complex grammar which is incompatible with a token-based parser. In particular, symbolic references like "The third […] starts below the second, and generally follows the second" are going to be lost on it. 2) The prompt includes details which a generative network is spectacularly unlikely to be able to handle, like asking for text labels with words like "prosecution" which are unlikely to be present in its training material. (Generally speaking, image generation models can only output short words which they've seen many times, like "STOP" or "PIZZA", and even those can be iffy.) 3) Speaking of training material, most of the training material given to image generation models consists of photographs and artwork. Technical diagrams are much less common, and when they do encounter those images, they're unlikely to be paired with the sorts of detailed descriptions that would be required to produce them on demand.
  - kaetemi 4y ago
    I've gotten a complete 11 word sentence generated in an image in Midjourney so far. It seems somewhat better at text than the other models somehow.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  Prompt shaming is a thing now, sigh… And it’s like a five minute job in Inkscape where he could’ve just done the paper drawing in that and be done.
- Thorentis 4y ago
  An experiment to prove that what? Humans are better at drawing graphs than computers? Well, Excel would like a word. That a neural net trained on photographs and artwork is bad at drawing graphs? Nobody expected otherwise. This "experiment" sets out to prove a hypothesis nobody had any doubts about. A far more interesting blog post would have been looking at Fivr artists vs AI when it came to producing unique character artwork for games, or logos, or almost anything except what was done instead.

darepublic 4y ago

Stop prompt blaming this guy. It's a legit experiment in my opinion

bowsamic 4y ago
Please explain why you think that, because I can’t possibly imagine what your justification is
- ThalesX 4y ago
  Not GP but I did the same thing with trying to design a t-shirt… how is this not relevant? We’re trying to asses various tools to get our jobs done, not trying to create a peer reviewed scientific paper.
smoldesu 4y ago
An experiment is only a single part of the scientific method, and one can easily neglect the rest of the steps. This article doesn't start with inquiry or a hypothesis from the author. We just get data and "I told you so" at the bottom, which doesn't illustrate anything. It's funny that what we don't see is a shorter prompt. If you ran this experiment with just "A graph with 3 slightly wavy lines", maybe the difference between AI and human results would be closer. Maybe that's the basis for a legitimate research project, but it's frustrating that the author takes the ball to the 80-yard-line and just gives up.
- sberens 4y ago
  Hmm did you read to the end of the post? Because I included a section showing the results on "a graph with 3 lines."
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    You're right, I shouldn't have bailed after the first few paragraphs. Sorry about that :p
duskwuff 4y ago
And it's a legit criticism. There are three major issues I see here: 1) The prompt uses fairly complex grammar which is incompatible with a token-based parser. In particular, symbolic references like "The third […] starts below the second, and generally follows the second" are going to be lost on it. 2) The prompt includes details which a generative network is spectacularly unlikely to be able to handle, like asking for text labels with words like "prosecution" which are unlikely to be present in its training material. (Generally speaking, image generation models can only output short words which they've seen many times, like "STOP" or "PIZZA", and even those can be iffy.) 3) Speaking of training material, most of the training material given to image generation models consists of photographs and artwork. Technical diagrams are much less common, and when they do encounter those images, they're unlikely to be paired with the sorts of detailed descriptions that would be required to produce them on demand.
- kaetemi 4y ago
  I've gotten a complete 11 word sentence generated in an image in Midjourney so far. It seems somewhat better at text than the other models somehow.
UncleEntity 4y ago
Prompt shaming is a thing now, sigh… And it’s like a five minute job in Inkscape where he could’ve just done the paper drawing in that and be done.
Thorentis 4y ago
An experiment to prove that what? Humans are better at drawing graphs than computers? Well, Excel would like a word. That a neural net trained on photographs and artwork is bad at drawing graphs? Nobody expected otherwise. This "experiment" sets out to prove a hypothesis nobody had any doubts about. A far more interesting blog post would have been looking at Fivr artists vs AI when it came to producing unique character artwork for games, or logos, or almost anything except what was done instead.