4 ms·

Adding a working control system doesn't take away the fact it requires skill though. It seems like people think that one day they will be able to give a vague

Adding a working control system doesn't take away the fact it requires skill though. It seems like people think that one day they will be able to give a vague prompt and generate exactly what they were looking for, which I don't believe will ever happen. It feels like there will always be some skill in navigating the model.

mdp2021 4y ago
> there will always be some skill There is a world of difference between the needs in governance in just having to write "Those decorations where I marked the area, make them a bit more Hans Holbein as opposed to Klimt", compared to knowing patching tricks so that if you asked the engine to draw a 'T' you were not being served a 'B'. This latter example - ask 'B', get 'T' - I have seen from Midjourney only a few hours ago, in the public showcase. I have examined several prompts and results, and very often they do not overlap but very partially - the engine is like a wild horse. That this is not intrinsic, but just a current stage, is only part of the story: the user will want to have a tool that allows the production of what the artist had exactly in mind (not just "anything nice as /inspired/ by our suggestions"). It is the normal form of the product in its "ready for shipment" state.
- ZephyrBlu 4y ago
  I disagree it will ever be that easy for people to generate specifically what they’re looking for. I believe there will always be some amount of navigation of the latent space required, and people who don’t understand how to navigate it will struggle. To use your analogy, even if the horse is tame you still need to know how to ride it.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > that easy Can you code? Can you illustrate? Can you build? Piece by piece, you sketch, implement, hone, finetune, improve, correct, retry, go into detail, expand... The ease of the process is relative to the tools adopted. Of course there has to be knowledge behind it. Of course you have to know your tools. But "wild horse" and "diligent consultant", axe and scalpel require different degrees areas and modalities of competence. A well built tool will build on the competences already natural for the professional (e.g. a graphic designer will be able to sketch and to instruct the machine in a reasonably standard language). Of course the better you know your tool, the greater the effectiveness. But currently, the systems can be strongly unreliable - they do not respect the request. The user will have to learn to deal with a machine taking natural language as an input just like any manager has to know how to speak to personnel to obtain what is wanted. On the other hand, the implementation of "virtual personnel" which is reliable is a responsibility of the tool developers.
    - ZephyrBlu 4y ago
      My point is that even with improved tooling I don't think it will be accessible to a layman. You will need to develop some skill to wield the tool. It seems like you agree based on parts of your comment like "A well built tool will build on the competences already natural for the professional".
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > That this is not intrinsic, but just a current stage, is only part of the story: the user will want to have a tool that allows the production of what the artist had exactly in mind Communicating to another entity (even a human) “exactly what you had in mind” (or, more to the point, so as to get them to behave so as to produce “exactly what you had in mind”) is a skill which involves understanding of the audience, understanding of the mode of communication, and understanding of the field about which you are communicating. “Prompt engineering” is just a fancy name for the particular application of that set of skills in the domain of getting desired results out of an LLM. Whether or not the terminology ends up being durable, the skill isn’t going away, as long as we are using language to communicate with models. (Once we get the ability to just plug our brain into an AI, will their be a skill of focussing properly so that the mind-reading tech reads the right thoughts? Probably, and that will be the new “prompt engineering”.)
throwaway675309 4y ago
If by "some skill" you mean the basic ability to type vaguely coherent English, than I agree. If anything the recent generative art advancements coming out (Firefly, MJ v5) would seem to refute your point. There was a time when diffusion models require some level of knowledge and skill to use. To get high quality output, it was in your best interest to learn about the different types of samplers, upscalers, hyper networks, textual inversions, understanding denoising etc. etc. Now? I'd say the millions of active users on MJ would seem to prove you wrong. As far as language models like GPT, we've already seen the average level of skill needed come down with each successive release, ChatGPT is easier to use than GPT-3 which is easier to use than GPT-2. Furthermore, devs in the space (Stability, OpenAI, etc) could refine/train pre-processing LLM models that transform more accessible amateur prompts to more professional prompts at real-time.
- ZephyrBlu 4y ago
  I've used MJ quite a lot. It's easy to create something. It's quite difficult to create a specific thing.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > pre-processing LLM models that transform more accessible amateur prompts Dangerous! It looks like instead of driving directly, you are tapping on the shoulders of the one at the steering wheel. Which is useful for children, and frustrating for drivers.

mdp2021 4y ago

> there will always be some skill There is a world of difference between the needs in governance in just having to write "Those decorations where I marked the area, make them a bit more Hans Holbein as opposed to Klimt", compared to knowing patching tricks so that if you asked the engine to draw a 'T' you were not being served a 'B'. This latter example - ask 'B', get 'T' - I have seen from Midjourney only a few hours ago, in the public showcase. I have examined several prompts and results, and very often they do not overlap but very partially - the engine is like a wild horse. That this is not intrinsic, but just a current stage, is only part of the story: the user will want to have a tool that allows the production of what the artist had exactly in mind (not just "anything nice as /inspired/ by our suggestions"). It is the normal form of the product in its "ready for shipment" state.

ZephyrBlu 4y ago
I disagree it will ever be that easy for people to generate specifically what they’re looking for. I believe there will always be some amount of navigation of the latent space required, and people who don’t understand how to navigate it will struggle. To use your analogy, even if the horse is tame you still need to know how to ride it.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > that easy Can you code? Can you illustrate? Can you build? Piece by piece, you sketch, implement, hone, finetune, improve, correct, retry, go into detail, expand... The ease of the process is relative to the tools adopted. Of course there has to be knowledge behind it. Of course you have to know your tools. But "wild horse" and "diligent consultant", axe and scalpel require different degrees areas and modalities of competence. A well built tool will build on the competences already natural for the professional (e.g. a graphic designer will be able to sketch and to instruct the machine in a reasonably standard language). Of course the better you know your tool, the greater the effectiveness. But currently, the systems can be strongly unreliable - they do not respect the request. The user will have to learn to deal with a machine taking natural language as an input just like any manager has to know how to speak to personnel to obtain what is wanted. On the other hand, the implementation of "virtual personnel" which is reliable is a responsibility of the tool developers.
  - ZephyrBlu 4y ago
    My point is that even with improved tooling I don't think it will be accessible to a layman. You will need to develop some skill to wield the tool. It seems like you agree based on parts of your comment like "A well built tool will build on the competences already natural for the professional".
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
dragonwriter 4y ago
> That this is not intrinsic, but just a current stage, is only part of the story: the user will want to have a tool that allows the production of what the artist had exactly in mind Communicating to another entity (even a human) “exactly what you had in mind” (or, more to the point, so as to get them to behave so as to produce “exactly what you had in mind”) is a skill which involves understanding of the audience, understanding of the mode of communication, and understanding of the field about which you are communicating. “Prompt engineering” is just a fancy name for the particular application of that set of skills in the domain of getting desired results out of an LLM. Whether or not the terminology ends up being durable, the skill isn’t going away, as long as we are using language to communicate with models. (Once we get the ability to just plug our brain into an AI, will their be a skill of focussing properly so that the mind-reading tech reads the right thoughts? Probably, and that will be the new “prompt engineering”.)

throwaway675309 4y ago

If by "some skill" you mean the basic ability to type vaguely coherent English, than I agree. If anything the recent generative art advancements coming out (Firefly, MJ v5) would seem to refute your point. There was a time when diffusion models require some level of knowledge and skill to use. To get high quality output, it was in your best interest to learn about the different types of samplers, upscalers, hyper networks, textual inversions, understanding denoising etc. etc. Now? I'd say the millions of active users on MJ would seem to prove you wrong. As far as language models like GPT, we've already seen the average level of skill needed come down with each successive release, ChatGPT is easier to use than GPT-3 which is easier to use than GPT-2. Furthermore, devs in the space (Stability, OpenAI, etc) could refine/train pre-processing LLM models that transform more accessible amateur prompts to more professional prompts at real-time.

ZephyrBlu 4y ago
I've used MJ quite a lot. It's easy to create something. It's quite difficult to create a specific thing.
mdp2021 4y ago
> pre-processing LLM models that transform more accessible amateur prompts Dangerous! It looks like instead of driving directly, you are tapping on the shoulders of the one at the steering wheel. Which is useful for children, and frustrating for drivers.