3 ms·

> 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 existenc

by 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 ago
Those are just awful compared to the side view of a pelican on a bike.
- nl 5mo ago
  Have 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 ago
  What 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 ago
    Sure, something like that. Note like the examples you posted.
    - nl 5mo ago
      I'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?
      - bluegatty 5mo ago
        They don't look anything like the photo. They're not 'oblique' - they're 'squared' views and none of the anatomy looks appropriately adjusted. The model has no ability to 'rotate a figure in 3d space' and conceptualize how all of the elements work together. It's 'pattern matching'. This is the 'great intuition' for how LLMs work - it's not perfect because a lot of 'synthetic reasoning' can be done obviously. And they probably never will, LLMs are not the right thing for this kind of task. Think about how they can investigate massive code-bases and find arcane bugs - but cant draw a duck from arbitrary oblique angles etc. That said, with enough examples they probably could.

by nl 5mo ago

squeaky-clean 5mo ago

Those are just awful compared to the side view of a pelican on a bike.

nl 5mo ago
Have 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 ago
What 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 ago
  Sure, something like that. Note like the examples you posted.
  - nl 5mo ago
    I'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?
    - bluegatty 5mo ago
      They don't look anything like the photo. They're not 'oblique' - they're 'squared' views and none of the anatomy looks appropriately adjusted. The model has no ability to 'rotate a figure in 3d space' and conceptualize how all of the elements work together. It's 'pattern matching'. This is the 'great intuition' for how LLMs work - it's not perfect because a lot of 'synthetic reasoning' can be done obviously. And they probably never will, LLMs are not the right thing for this kind of task. Think about how they can investigate massive code-bases and find arcane bugs - but cant draw a duck from arbitrary oblique angles etc. That said, with enough examples they probably could.