3 ms·

It's sad that they used 4o's image generation feature for the cat example which does some diffusion or something else, results in the whole image changing. They

It's sad that they used 4o's image generation feature for the cat example which does some diffusion or something else, results in the whole image changing. They should've instead used Gemini 2.0 Flash's image generation feature (or at least mentioned it!), which, even if far lower quality and resolution (max of 1024x1024, but Gemini will try to match the res of the original image, so you can get something like 681x1024), is much much better at leaving the untouched parts of the image actually "untouched". Here's the best out of a few attempts for a really similar prompt, more detailed since Flash is a much smaller model "Give the cat a detective hat and a monocle over his right eye, properly integrate them into the photo.". You can see how the rest of the image is practically untouched to the naked human eye: https://ibb.co/zVgDbqV3 https://ibb.co/zVgDbqV3 Honestly Google has been really good at catching up in the LLM race, and their modern models like 2.0 Flash, 2.5 Pro are one of (or the) best in their respective areas. I hope that they'll scale up their image generation feature to base it on 2.5 Pro (or maybe 3 Pro by the time they do it) for higher quality and prompt adherence. If you want, you can give 2.0 Flash image gen a try for free (with generous limits) on https://aistudio.google.com/prompts/new_chat https://aistudio.google.com/prompts/new_chat, just select it in the model selector on the right.

blixt 2y ago
I'm not sure I see the behavior in the Gemini 2.0 Flash model's image output as a strength. It seems to me it has multiple output modes, one indeed being masked edits. But it also seems to have convolutional matrix edits (e.g. "make this image grayscale" looks practically like it's applying a Photoshop filter) and true latent space edits ("show me this scene 1 minute later" or "move the camera so it is above this scene, pointing down"). And it almost seems to me these are actually distinct modes, which seems like it's been a bit too hand engineered. On the other hand, OpenAI's model, while it does seem to have some upscaling magic happening (which makes the outputs look a lot nicer than the ones from Gemini FWIW), also seems to perform all its edits entirely in latent space (hence it's easy to see things degrade at a conceptual level such as texture, rotation, position, etc.) But this is a sign that its latent space mode is solid enough to always use, while with Gemini 2.0 Flash I get the feeling when it is used, it's just not performing as well.
esperent 2y ago
> You can see how the rest of the image is practically untouched to the naked human eye: https://ibb.co/zVgDbqV3 https://ibb.co/zVgDbqV3 The cat's facial hair coloring is entirely different in your image, far more so than the OpenAI one. It has a half white nose instead of a half black nose, the ears are black instead of pink, the cheeks are solid colors instead of striped. Yours is the head of an entirely different cat grafted onto the original body. The OpenAI one is like the original cat run through a beauty filter. The eyes are completely different. But it's facial hair patterning is matched much better. Neither one of great though. They both output cats that are not recognizable as the original.
casey2 2y ago
For me flash is much worse. Both are incapable of generating any kind of flowchart similar to the one I give, but 4o does slightly better in that I can read it. Neither make sense.

blixt 2y ago

I'm not sure I see the behavior in the Gemini 2.0 Flash model's image output as a strength. It seems to me it has multiple output modes, one indeed being masked edits. But it also seems to have convolutional matrix edits (e.g. "make this image grayscale" looks practically like it's applying a Photoshop filter) and true latent space edits ("show me this scene 1 minute later" or "move the camera so it is above this scene, pointing down"). And it almost seems to me these are actually distinct modes, which seems like it's been a bit too hand engineered. On the other hand, OpenAI's model, while it does seem to have some upscaling magic happening (which makes the outputs look a lot nicer than the ones from Gemini FWIW), also seems to perform all its edits entirely in latent space (hence it's easy to see things degrade at a conceptual level such as texture, rotation, position, etc.) But this is a sign that its latent space mode is solid enough to always use, while with Gemini 2.0 Flash I get the feeling when it is used, it's just not performing as well.

esperent 2y ago

> You can see how the rest of the image is practically untouched to the naked human eye: https://ibb.co/zVgDbqV3 https://ibb.co/zVgDbqV3 The cat's facial hair coloring is entirely different in your image, far more so than the OpenAI one. It has a half white nose instead of a half black nose, the ears are black instead of pink, the cheeks are solid colors instead of striped. Yours is the head of an entirely different cat grafted onto the original body. The OpenAI one is like the original cat run through a beauty filter. The eyes are completely different. But it's facial hair patterning is matched much better. Neither one of great though. They both output cats that are not recognizable as the original.

casey2 2y ago

For me flash is much worse. Both are incapable of generating any kind of flowchart similar to the one I give, but 4o does slightly better in that I can read it. Neither make sense.