[amanuonsense]

What you said was that they weren't trained on chart images, not that they weren't the focus:

> The image generation models weren't trained on chart images, everyone already knows they're gonna be bad at that.

I have no idea how you could even know what was, or wasn't in those models training sets. Yet you posted with conviction as if you were sure you knew. What's the point of that?

Edit - Also, what do you mean "it obviously wasn't the focus"? The focus of what? The focus of training, or the focus of presenting the results on social media?

[TulliusCicero]

This is absurdly silly. These data sets contain millions of images at a bare minimum from web crawls, often billions, so of course there will be a non-zero number of charts in them. If you want to be pedantic about it be my guest I guess.

You could probably find a few driver's ed teachers who taught their students to do doughnuts too, but saying "driver's ed teachers don't teach their students to do doughnuts" would nonetheless be largely accurate.

[amanuonsense]

Silly yourself. If there were simply a "non-zero" number of charts in them, the model wouldn't have, you know, modelled them. That the model can reproduce graphs is clear evidence that it saw enough graphs to reproduce them.

And don't call me silly just because you used imprecise language to try to make a vague point with great conviction as if you absolutely knew what you're talking about, when you absolutely didn't. Show some respect to the intellect of your interlocutor, will you?

And, seriously, you haven't answered my question: the focus of what? What do you mean by "it obviously wasn't the focus"?

I think you were emboldened by the downvoting of my comment and assumed you don't need to make sense, but I think the downvoters were downvoting something else than what you refuse to answer.