3 ms·

It could suggest that humans have a much more sensitive and expressive sense of language than they do image perception, which seems plausible. We can spot flawe

It could suggest that humans have a much more sensitive and expressive sense of language than they do image perception, which seems plausible. We can spot flawed language in more contexts than flawed images, and can produce a bigger range of representation in text and than image. So for a system to produce human-satisfying text, it needs to be far more prepared than one that produces images. Conversely, this may underscore how inefficient pixel-like storage is for communicative and artistic images. Ten years from now, many of those kinds of images may only take a few hundred bytes and a good enough generator model to “decompress” them for display.

colechristensen 4y ago
No it’s just that an image can’t be “false” or “grammatically incorrect”. Anything recognizable can make a satisfying image and people don’t seem too bothered by the kinds of mistakes image generators make. Text generated though we want not to be just a pile of recognizable words but to follow some pretty strict rules and to actually be true. Imagine you insisted stablediffusion only produce photorealistic images and judged it for every inaccuracy.
- swatcoder 4y ago
  That’s exactly what I said. We have those words (false, grammatically incorrect, etc) because we have a more particular sense of language and identify more nuance in how language fails for us than how images fail for us.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    It's more that nonsensical language is meaningless, because language has so little content density to begin with, so losing a little loses almost all of it, whereas a mishmashy picture has lots of pieces of meaning, even if the whole is a mess, because images are far more information dense.
chaxor 4y ago
This is the most likely I believe. I expect that the local correlation structure in images is more homogenous than in language, there are more chances to make mistakes (e.g. confusing the intangible and tangible - You can't see green ideas sleeping furiously) and, perhaps, we might even criticise mistakes from long range interactions more in language.

colechristensen 4y ago

No it’s just that an image can’t be “false” or “grammatically incorrect”. Anything recognizable can make a satisfying image and people don’t seem too bothered by the kinds of mistakes image generators make. Text generated though we want not to be just a pile of recognizable words but to follow some pretty strict rules and to actually be true. Imagine you insisted stablediffusion only produce photorealistic images and judged it for every inaccuracy.

swatcoder 4y ago
That’s exactly what I said. We have those words (false, grammatically incorrect, etc) because we have a more particular sense of language and identify more nuance in how language fails for us than how images fail for us.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  It's more that nonsensical language is meaningless, because language has so little content density to begin with, so losing a little loses almost all of it, whereas a mishmashy picture has lots of pieces of meaning, even if the whole is a mess, because images are far more information dense.

chaxor 4y ago

This is the most likely I believe. I expect that the local correlation structure in images is more homogenous than in language, there are more chances to make mistakes (e.g. confusing the intangible and tangible - You can't see green ideas sleeping furiously) and, perhaps, we might even criticise mistakes from long range interactions more in language.