5 ms·

Let's try "chinese girl making heart with fingers --v 5", a prompt I had used before under v4. Result: https://i.imgur.com/jPgBqsX.png https://i.imgur.com/jPgBq

Let's try "chinese girl making heart with fingers --v 5", a prompt I had used before under v4. Result: https://i.imgur.com/jPgBqsX.png https://i.imgur.com/jPgBqsX.png In image 1, the subject appears to be missing a digit on each hand. In image 2, the missing digits issue expands, combined with what appears to be a merging of the thumbs. Image 3 introduces a supernumerary digit on each hand, and has extra "parts" disappear into and out of other fingers. Image 4... isn't right in a number of ways, but still seems to have fewer than the expected number of digits. I don't think these results are any better than the v4 model was, but decide for yourself. This is what I got with the same prompt using -v 4 on March 1. https://i.imgur.com/hQA2K7m.png https://i.imgur.com/hQA2K7m.png I ended up just taking a photo of my daughter and blurring the background.

abraxas 4y ago
V5 is vastly better. V4 mutations are outright creepy.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  Neither of them produced a result I could use. One or the other might be more aesthetically pleasing to you depending on what you focus on, but both are very badly broken in fundamental ways. If anything, I'd say v5 is more confident about its wrongness. It is as if humans have always had four fingers, how could you possible think otherwise? It that sense it seems more like the text-based LLMs: confidently incorrect.
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  V5 looks like photos with filters on. V4 looks like a painting.
- muyuu 4y ago
  they're both pretty flawed but v5 is better it still doesn't seem to respect anatomy when it comes to hands particularly, perhaps an artefact of not paying attention to hard constraints that are not visually self-evident
bqmjjx0kac 4y ago
Wow, imgur.com ate my back button. Edit: I accidentally clicked share before trying to leave. Seems to persist even after closing the share dialog. Less of a dark pattern and more likely a bug, I suppose.
- davidmurphy 4y ago
  same
- kadoban 4y ago
  Someone's A/B test probably went great. Engagement and time spent goes way up if nobody can ever leave the page :)
- pwinnski 4y ago
  Weird, I linked directly to the image as a PNG file, and checked it on my computer, it is just the image, nothing else. Based on your comment, I just tried clicking on my phone instead, and sure enough, imgur intercepts and redirects to imgur.io on mobile. But it still didn't break my back button on iOS, so I'm not sure what's different for you.
IIAOPSW 4y ago
These systems can't count in general. Doesn't matter if its fingers, n clocks on a wall (for all 1 digit vals of n), some variation of n items on an x, or even "a picture within a picture within..." k times. The machine can't count. >I ended up just taking a photo of my daughter and blurring the background. Ah, the diffusion process.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  I suspect inability to count is a thing that can be trained for, although whether that will come at the expense of something else, I'm not sure. I appreciate the humor. :)
  - IIAOPSW 4y ago
    Why the optimism? If it hasn't picked up on the gist of the meaning of 1-10 after 10 billion examples, why expect it to work after 20 billion examples? These models have worked unreasonably well so far, but there has to be a limit to how much we can substitute more data for our lack of conceptual understanding of cognitive processes.
    - pwinnski 4y ago
      Because I'm not sure counting is something that has been explicitly tagged or trained for. Clearly always-accurate counts are not an emergent feature, but if you tagged a large set of images with tags we think are too obvious to tag as humans, like "ten fingers" and so on, if that was an actual goal to be rewarded, I think it could improve results. I'm overall in the skeptic camp, but it seems like these models can generally deliver what they're trained for. It doesn't appear any have been trained with counting as a primary goal.
      - IIAOPSW 4y ago
        Ten fingers surely wouldn't be tagged, but the thing about numbers is that they work as well for 10 apples as they do for 10 coins and 10 cups and 10 whatever. It never made the leap of abstraction to learn in the latent space the meaning of numbers 1-10 independent of the particular object. This lack of extrapolation lends it to a very rote learned style. I already have a way around the specific numerical vocabulary/training problem. When I ask for "a picture in a frame", "a picture of a picture in a frame", "a picture of a picture of a picture in a frame" etc, I'm trying to use linguistic recursion to make numeracy emerge. But even that form of counting without predefined numbers fails. There's no reliable way to make a prompt the produces k of something. That's a deeper issue than it not deducing the specific meaning of characters 0-9 by example. It can't learn that by example as there really isn't training data with more than 2 nested pictures of pictures, and by itself it will never realize it can just fill in the nested painting by prompting itself with the nested statement. It lacks thought loops.
oezi 4y ago
How quickly the bar was raised. I can remember a time when we nitpicked Dall.E for creepy eyes. Surprisingly some things we consider easy seem to be hard computationally.
- recuter 4y ago
  I can count eleven mistakes in your comment on one hand. (Born near Chernobyl, ymmv)

abraxas 4y ago

V5 is vastly better. V4 mutations are outright creepy.

pwinnski 4y ago
Neither of them produced a result I could use. One or the other might be more aesthetically pleasing to you depending on what you focus on, but both are very badly broken in fundamental ways. If anything, I'd say v5 is more confident about its wrongness. It is as if humans have always had four fingers, how could you possible think otherwise? It that sense it seems more like the text-based LLMs: confidently incorrect.
spaceman_2020 4y ago
V5 looks like photos with filters on. V4 looks like a painting.
muyuu 4y ago
they're both pretty flawed but v5 is better it still doesn't seem to respect anatomy when it comes to hands particularly, perhaps an artefact of not paying attention to hard constraints that are not visually self-evident

bqmjjx0kac 4y ago

Wow, imgur.com ate my back button. Edit: I accidentally clicked share before trying to leave. Seems to persist even after closing the share dialog. Less of a dark pattern and more likely a bug, I suppose.

davidmurphy 4y ago
same
kadoban 4y ago
Someone's A/B test probably went great. Engagement and time spent goes way up if nobody can ever leave the page :)
pwinnski 4y ago
Weird, I linked directly to the image as a PNG file, and checked it on my computer, it is just the image, nothing else. Based on your comment, I just tried clicking on my phone instead, and sure enough, imgur intercepts and redirects to imgur.io on mobile. But it still didn't break my back button on iOS, so I'm not sure what's different for you.

IIAOPSW 4y ago

These systems can't count in general. Doesn't matter if its fingers, n clocks on a wall (for all 1 digit vals of n), some variation of n items on an x, or even "a picture within a picture within..." k times. The machine can't count. >I ended up just taking a photo of my daughter and blurring the background. Ah, the diffusion process.

pwinnski 4y ago
I suspect inability to count is a thing that can be trained for, although whether that will come at the expense of something else, I'm not sure. I appreciate the humor. :)
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  Why the optimism? If it hasn't picked up on the gist of the meaning of 1-10 after 10 billion examples, why expect it to work after 20 billion examples? These models have worked unreasonably well so far, but there has to be a limit to how much we can substitute more data for our lack of conceptual understanding of cognitive processes.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    Because I'm not sure counting is something that has been explicitly tagged or trained for. Clearly always-accurate counts are not an emergent feature, but if you tagged a large set of images with tags we think are too obvious to tag as humans, like "ten fingers" and so on, if that was an actual goal to be rewarded, I think it could improve results. I'm overall in the skeptic camp, but it seems like these models can generally deliver what they're trained for. It doesn't appear any have been trained with counting as a primary goal.
    - IIAOPSW 4y ago
      Ten fingers surely wouldn't be tagged, but the thing about numbers is that they work as well for 10 apples as they do for 10 coins and 10 cups and 10 whatever. It never made the leap of abstraction to learn in the latent space the meaning of numbers 1-10 independent of the particular object. This lack of extrapolation lends it to a very rote learned style. I already have a way around the specific numerical vocabulary/training problem. When I ask for "a picture in a frame", "a picture of a picture in a frame", "a picture of a picture of a picture in a frame" etc, I'm trying to use linguistic recursion to make numeracy emerge. But even that form of counting without predefined numbers fails. There's no reliable way to make a prompt the produces k of something. That's a deeper issue than it not deducing the specific meaning of characters 0-9 by example. It can't learn that by example as there really isn't training data with more than 2 nested pictures of pictures, and by itself it will never realize it can just fill in the nested painting by prompting itself with the nested statement. It lacks thought loops.

oezi 4y ago

How quickly the bar was raised. I can remember a time when we nitpicked Dall.E for creepy eyes. Surprisingly some things we consider easy seem to be hard computationally.

recuter 4y ago
I can count eleven mistakes in your comment on one hand. (Born near Chernobyl, ymmv)