3 ms·

> Nobody bothers to even check if it shows what they're implying it shows Or the vast majority of the hands are fine and everyone understands that it's a big

> Nobody bothers to even check if it shows what they're implying it shows Or the vast majority of the hands are fine and everyone understands that it's a big upgrade except for some "well ackshully it's not perfect" HNers. I had to zoom in and go hand to hand to find some outliers.

Jensson 4y ago
It did do hands correctly before, not always but sometimes. So I'd expect "can do hands" meant it no longer made those mistakes or why say that? But they didn't even manage to make a picture without mistakes, so to me as a naive outsider I don't see what the announcement is. If they said "is much better at hands" it would be much clearer to me what happened and nobody would complain, that looks pretty ok for the most part, but saying "it can do hands" based on those pictures doesn't seem right.
- 1attice 4y ago
  I'm genuinely sorry, but this reply sounds petulant to me. Please don't complain that you don't understand the significance or the magnitude of a particular advance. Please don't complain that the phrasing of the tweet wasn't accessible -- your ping time to google.com is no different than mine. This is HN. Wear your intellectual Sunday best.
  - starkparker 4y ago
    Even with Google, and having used Midjourney since v3, I still don't have enough context to understand what the advance is here. Midjourney could do hands before, just not consistently. That doesn't seem to have changed. So is it that MJ can now do more realistic hands inconsistently? Or did consistency get better without achieving reliability? I can't make this not sound sarcastic, but I'm trying very hard to ask this earnestly: I never had trouble getting too many hands into a picture with v3 or v4. Is v5 getting the correct number of hands more frequently now? Is that it?
    - 1attice 4y ago
      Yes, that's it precisely. The odds of having a good hand have gone up dramatically, near as I can tell. Even the hands that aren't quite right seem better somehow. I expect either MJ 7 or 8 to do hands flawlessly, every time.
      - nwienert 4y ago
        This is HN so if you’re claiming “dramatically” let’s get some proof.
        1attice 4y ago
        sure. See image on the tweet that started this thread. Now, take a look at these hands from MJ3: https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/wlujgw/midjourney_fail_why_dont_ai_art_generators/ https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/wlujgw/midjourn... It's important to note that MJ3 reliably did not produce human looking hands. It's equally important to note that MJ5 usually does, at least from a quick count/survey of the hands shown in the provided image. Is that sufficient? If not, what proofs would be sufficient?
  - bobsmooth 4y ago
    > your ping time to google.com is no different than mine That's gotta be the best comeback I've ever read on this site.

Jensson 4y ago

It did do hands correctly before, not always but sometimes. So I'd expect "can do hands" meant it no longer made those mistakes or why say that? But they didn't even manage to make a picture without mistakes, so to me as a naive outsider I don't see what the announcement is. If they said "is much better at hands" it would be much clearer to me what happened and nobody would complain, that looks pretty ok for the most part, but saying "it can do hands" based on those pictures doesn't seem right.

1attice 4y ago
I'm genuinely sorry, but this reply sounds petulant to me. Please don't complain that you don't understand the significance or the magnitude of a particular advance. Please don't complain that the phrasing of the tweet wasn't accessible -- your ping time to google.com is no different than mine. This is HN. Wear your intellectual Sunday best.
- starkparker 4y ago
  Even with Google, and having used Midjourney since v3, I still don't have enough context to understand what the advance is here. Midjourney could do hands before, just not consistently. That doesn't seem to have changed. So is it that MJ can now do more realistic hands inconsistently? Or did consistency get better without achieving reliability? I can't make this not sound sarcastic, but I'm trying very hard to ask this earnestly: I never had trouble getting too many hands into a picture with v3 or v4. Is v5 getting the correct number of hands more frequently now? Is that it?
  - 1attice 4y ago
    Yes, that's it precisely. The odds of having a good hand have gone up dramatically, near as I can tell. Even the hands that aren't quite right seem better somehow. I expect either MJ 7 or 8 to do hands flawlessly, every time.
    - nwienert 4y ago
      This is HN so if you’re claiming “dramatically” let’s get some proof.
      - 1attice 4y ago
        sure. See image on the tweet that started this thread. Now, take a look at these hands from MJ3: https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/wlujgw/midjourney_fail_why_dont_ai_art_generators/ https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/wlujgw/midjourn... It's important to note that MJ3 reliably did not produce human looking hands. It's equally important to note that MJ5 usually does, at least from a quick count/survey of the hands shown in the provided image. Is that sufficient? If not, what proofs would be sufficient?
- bobsmooth 4y ago
  > your ping time to google.com is no different than mine That's gotta be the best comeback I've ever read on this site.