5 ms·
> But 'Drawing of a Proper Duck' is almost arbitrary because it may have nothing to do with the 'Specific Duck You Wanted'. That might be the case, but Simon's
by nl 5mo ago
> But 'Drawing of a Proper Duck' is almost arbitrary because it may have nothing to do with the 'Specific Duck You Wanted'.
That might be the case, but Simon's case "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" is very different.
The model actually has to understand what parts of a pelican and bicycle come together in something like an anatomically plausible way. That's a higher level of abstraction than something like passing the same prompt to Stable Diffusion etc
(The new Nano Banana/GPT Image 2.0 models are different though - they have significant world knowledge baked in)
- bluegatty 5mo ago"That's a higher level of abstraction" No, it's not because it's seen 'anatomy' for Pelicans, Animals - even how it's represented in Animals. If you try to get the AI to actually decompose it and start to 'draw pelicans' in very obscure ways, it will immediately fail. Try to get the AI to draw the pelican form a very odd angle - like underneath, to the right, one wing extended, one wing not ... 0% chance. Precisely because it does not understand those things. FYI it's a slightly unfair case because it does not have 'world model' yet, which will actually solve that problem, but even then not through very much abstracting. We're a long way away - but in the meantime, there's lots to unpack.
- IanCal 5mo agoAre we a long way away? https://chatgpt.com/share/e/6a0bf28b-e198-8012-9a88-c777d965e525 https://chatgpt.com/share/e/6a0bf28b-e198-8012-9a88-c777d965...
- nl 5mo agoLink doesn't work - maybe not public?
- nl 5mo ago> Try to get the AI to draw the pelican form a very odd angle - like underneath, to the right, one wing extended, one wing not ... 0% chance. Proof by existence? https://gist.github.com/nlothian/50241d34a654fcf0caa280d4475c192d https://gist.github.com/nlothian/50241d34a654fcf0caa280d4475... Looks pretty good to me. ChatGPT in "Thinking" model. Edit: I've added the Opus version on the same link.
- squeaky-clean 5mo agoThose are just awful compared to the side view of a pelican on a bike.
- nl 5mo agoHave you seen a pelican from underneath? There's not much to show!
- bluegatty 5mo ago? That's evidence that it does not work. Neither of those are from 'under' they both look either front or top? Imagine yourself under the ducks feet, looking up at an oblique angle - wings as I suggested. The AI won't do that, it has no reference for dimensionality.
- nl 5mo agoWhat on earth do you mean? I live near an area with lots of pelicans. If you look up at one flying overhead this is what they look like. Here is a photo for comparison: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:American_white_pelicans_flying_over_Chase_Lake_NWR_%2816195343458%29.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:American_white_pelic...
- bluegatty 5mo agoSure, something like that. Note like the examples you posted.
- nl 5mo agoI've very confused. The SVGs show the beak, wing, tail, feet and body as though viewed from directly underneath. They look similar to the photo, but meet the instructions better ("from underneath"). What are you expecting exactly?
- 5mo ago
- koonsolo 5mo ago> That might be the case, but Simon's case "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" is very different. When it was new, sure. Right now, models can be trained on that because everybody uses it as a benchmark.
- bluegatty 5mo agoThe model is trained on lines, and the word 'pelican' and not much more. The model does not 'understand' comprehensively the relationship between anatomy, dimensionality, etc..
- iammjm 5mo agoyou can replace the pelican and the bicycle with your preferred animal and a means of locomotion. I bet you can come up with a pair that definitely wasnt in the training data