|
|
|
|
|
|
by marricks
53 days ago
|
|
|
Like... this has things that AI will seemingly always be terrible at? At some point the level of detail is utter garbo and always will be. An artist who was thoughtful could have some mistakes but someone who put that much time into a drawing wouldn't have: - Nightmarish screaming faces on most people - A sign that points seemingly both directions, or the incorrect one for a lake and a first AID tent that doesn't exist - A dog in bottom left and near lake which looks like some sort of fuzzy monstrosity... It looks SO impressive before you try to take in any detail. The hand selected images for the preview have the same shit. The view of musculature has a sternocleidomastoid with no clavicle attachment. The periodic table seems good until you take a look at the metals... We're reconfiguring all of our RAM & GPUs and wasting so much water and electricity for crappier where's Waldos?? |
|
|
However as someone who's mucked about with local image generation as well - I'd say that this is a problem with their implementation, it doesn't resolve fine detail because majority of requests it won't matter/it drastically increases compute requirements.
With local image generation bad features/incorrect fingers/disfigurement etc has been solved for a long time.
I think their new process involves multiple steps including sketching/fleshing out the idea before adding detail. The step that would fix this would be outpainting or similar to tile based upscaling.
From what I understand of image generation models they also struggle with fine detail in general because they aren't really trained for that. However for each tiny chunk of a detailed image like that there's nothing to say they can't allocate a 500x500 chunk for it to work in as its "idea/reference space" and then transpose that into the main image being generated - i.e. generate image features separately rather than all together.