3 ms·

I grabbed an old Obon festival flyer from 2014 and told chatgtp to: "look at this image and give me variants in the style of classical japanese artists and gr

I grabbed an old Obon festival flyer from 2014 and told chatgtp to: "look at this image and give me variants in the style of classical japanese artists and graphics designers (be sure to include hokusai and Ikko Tanaka). be sure to tell me about each style. upscale and include the original with some designer words that are plausible" at least two of these don't look like AI to me and are perhaps better than the original. but a non-designer is likely to pick the more busy ones. https://files.catbox.moe/5p5m9v.png https://files.catbox.moe/5p5m9v.png

Otterly99 10d ago
I would say most of these look pretty good but most of them miss the important information except maybe 5. 3 has most of the information but some of it is hard to see. I would say this is a pretty good way to showcase what is wrong with image generation in AI in general: impressive visually but missing the basics (here complete and readable information). I have been playing around with Google flow generating scenes with animals characters and the fur always look incredible. Same goes for the facial expressions but the generation is comically bad in scene continuity, even in the same scene. It's not uncommon for characters to lose/acquire features or objects from one moment to another (like losing glasses, but they reappear a few seconds later). For a lack of a better term, I would call this the "golden turd" effect.