3 ms·

I figured this would quickly go off the rails into surreal territory, but instead it ended up being progressive technological de-evolution. Starting prompt: "

by Mtinie 3y ago

I figured this would quickly go off the rails into surreal territory, but instead it ended up being progressive technological de-evolution. Starting prompt: "A futuristic hybrid of a steam engine train and a DaVinci flying machine" Results: https://dalle.party/?party=14ESewbz https://dalle.party/?party=14ESewbz (Addendum: In case anyone was curious how costs scale by iteration, the full ten iterations in this result billed $0.21 against my credit balance.)

ChatGTP 3y ago
I like how in #9 the carriage is on fire, or at least steaming disproportionately. These images are incredible but I often notice stuff like this and it kind of ruins it for me. #3 & #4 are good too, when the tracks are smoking, but not the train.
Mtinie 3y ago
Here's a second run of the same starting prompt, this time using the "make it more whimsical" modifier. It makes a difference and I find it fascinating what parts of the prompt/image gain prominence during the evolutions. Starting prompt: "A futuristic hybrid of a steam engine train and a DaVinci flying machine" Results: https://dalle.party/?party=qLHPB2-o https://dalle.party/?party=qLHPB2-o Cost: Eight iterations @ $0.44 -- which suggests to me that the API is getting additional hits beyond the run. I confirmed that the share link isn't passing along the key (via a separate browser and a separate machine) so I'm not clear why this is might be.
- jamestimmins 3y ago
  I find it somewhat fascinating that in both examples, the final result is more cohesive around a single them than the original idea.
  - Mtinie 3y ago
    > "[...]the final result is more cohesive around a single them than the original idea." That's an observation worth investigating. Here's another set of data points to see if there's more to it... Input prompt: "Six robots on a boat with harpoons, battling sharks with lasers strapped to their heads" GPT4V prompt: "Write a prompt for an AI to make this image. Just return the prompt, don't say anything else. Make it funnier." Result: https://dalle.party/?party=pfWGthli https://dalle.party/?party=pfWGthli Cost: Ten iterations @ $0.41 (Addendum: I'd forgotten to mention that I believe the cost differential is due to the token count of each of the prompts. The first case mentioned had less words passed through each of the prompts than the later attempts when I asked it to 'make it whimsical' or 'make it funnier'.)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - mattigames 3y ago
      Pretty dissapointing how in the first picture the robots are standing there, just like a character selection in a videogame, maybe the dataset don't have many robots fighting just static ones. Talking about videogames, someone should make one based on this concept specially the 7th image[0], I wanna be a dolphin with a machine gun strapped on its head fighting flying cyber demonic whales. [0] https://i.imgur.com/q502is4.png https://i.imgur.com/q502is4.png
    - jamestimmins 3y ago
      Both of your examples seem to start with two subjects (steam engine/flying machine and shark/robot), and throughout the animation one of them gets more prominence until the other is eventually dropped altogether.
      - Mtinie 3y ago
        I was curious if two subject prompts behaved different from three subject, so I've run three additional tests, each with the same three subjects and general prompt structure + instructions, but swapping the position of each subject in the prompt. Each test was run for ten iterations. GPT4V instructions for all tests: "Write a prompt for an AI to make this image. Just return the prompt, don't say anything else. Make it weirder." From what you'll see in the results there's possible evidence of bias towards the first subject listed in a prompt, making it the object of fixation through the subsequent iterations. I'll also speculate that "gnomes" (and their derivations) and "cosmic images" are over-represented as subjects in the underlying training data. But that's wild speculation based on an extremely small sample of results. In any case, playing around with this tool has been enjoyable and a fun use of API credits. Thank you @z991 for putting this together and sharing it! ------ Test 1 ------ Prompt: "Two garden gnomes, a sentient mushroom, and a sugar skull who once played a gig at CBGB in New York City converse about the boundaries of artificial intelligence." Result: https://dalle.party/?party=ZSOHsnZe https://dalle.party/?party=ZSOHsnZe ------ Test 2 ------ Prompt: "A sentient mushroom, a sugar skull who once played a gig at CBGB in New York City, and two garden gnomes converse about the boundaries of artificial intelligence." Result: https://dalle.party/?party=pojziwkU https://dalle.party/?party=pojziwkU ------ Test 3 ------ Prompt: "A sugar skull who once played a gig at CBGB in New York City, a sentient mushroom, and two garden gnomes converse about the boundaries of artificial intelligence." Result: https://dalle.party/?party=RBIjLSuZ https://dalle.party/?party=RBIjLSuZ
- jm4 3y ago
  The second picture reminds me of Back to the Future III.

by Mtinie 3y ago

ChatGTP 3y ago

I like how in #9 the carriage is on fire, or at least steaming disproportionately. These images are incredible but I often notice stuff like this and it kind of ruins it for me. #3 & #4 are good too, when the tracks are smoking, but not the train.

Mtinie 3y ago

Here's a second run of the same starting prompt, this time using the "make it more whimsical" modifier. It makes a difference and I find it fascinating what parts of the prompt/image gain prominence during the evolutions. Starting prompt: "A futuristic hybrid of a steam engine train and a DaVinci flying machine" Results: https://dalle.party/?party=qLHPB2-o https://dalle.party/?party=qLHPB2-o Cost: Eight iterations @ $0.44 -- which suggests to me that the API is getting additional hits beyond the run. I confirmed that the share link isn't passing along the key (via a separate browser and a separate machine) so I'm not clear why this is might be.

jamestimmins 3y ago
I find it somewhat fascinating that in both examples, the final result is more cohesive around a single them than the original idea.
- Mtinie 3y ago
  > "[...]the final result is more cohesive around a single them than the original idea." That's an observation worth investigating. Here's another set of data points to see if there's more to it... Input prompt: "Six robots on a boat with harpoons, battling sharks with lasers strapped to their heads" GPT4V prompt: "Write a prompt for an AI to make this image. Just return the prompt, don't say anything else. Make it funnier." Result: https://dalle.party/?party=pfWGthli https://dalle.party/?party=pfWGthli Cost: Ten iterations @ $0.41 (Addendum: I'd forgotten to mention that I believe the cost differential is due to the token count of each of the prompts. The first case mentioned had less words passed through each of the prompts than the later attempts when I asked it to 'make it whimsical' or 'make it funnier'.)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattigames 3y ago
    Pretty dissapointing how in the first picture the robots are standing there, just like a character selection in a videogame, maybe the dataset don't have many robots fighting just static ones. Talking about videogames, someone should make one based on this concept specially the 7th image[0], I wanna be a dolphin with a machine gun strapped on its head fighting flying cyber demonic whales. [0] https://i.imgur.com/q502is4.png https://i.imgur.com/q502is4.png
  - jamestimmins 3y ago
    Both of your examples seem to start with two subjects (steam engine/flying machine and shark/robot), and throughout the animation one of them gets more prominence until the other is eventually dropped altogether.
    - Mtinie 3y ago
      I was curious if two subject prompts behaved different from three subject, so I've run three additional tests, each with the same three subjects and general prompt structure + instructions, but swapping the position of each subject in the prompt. Each test was run for ten iterations. GPT4V instructions for all tests: "Write a prompt for an AI to make this image. Just return the prompt, don't say anything else. Make it weirder." From what you'll see in the results there's possible evidence of bias towards the first subject listed in a prompt, making it the object of fixation through the subsequent iterations. I'll also speculate that "gnomes" (and their derivations) and "cosmic images" are over-represented as subjects in the underlying training data. But that's wild speculation based on an extremely small sample of results. In any case, playing around with this tool has been enjoyable and a fun use of API credits. Thank you @z991 for putting this together and sharing it! ------ Test 1 ------ Prompt: "Two garden gnomes, a sentient mushroom, and a sugar skull who once played a gig at CBGB in New York City converse about the boundaries of artificial intelligence." Result: https://dalle.party/?party=ZSOHsnZe https://dalle.party/?party=ZSOHsnZe ------ Test 2 ------ Prompt: "A sentient mushroom, a sugar skull who once played a gig at CBGB in New York City, and two garden gnomes converse about the boundaries of artificial intelligence." Result: https://dalle.party/?party=pojziwkU https://dalle.party/?party=pojziwkU ------ Test 3 ------ Prompt: "A sugar skull who once played a gig at CBGB in New York City, a sentient mushroom, and two garden gnomes converse about the boundaries of artificial intelligence." Result: https://dalle.party/?party=RBIjLSuZ https://dalle.party/?party=RBIjLSuZ
jm4 3y ago
The second picture reminds me of Back to the Future III.