4 ms·

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 ad

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.

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.