That will probably continue to be the approach indefinitely. There's going to be an increasingly advanced translation layer in-between the user prompt and the software responsible for producing the images. We've done this for pretty much all computing & software systems that people interface with. Stripping out the complexity on the front-end for the user is one key to how you get generative software to go super wide. To do that more of the complexity goes to the back-end.
I'm kind of hoping that they adjust it to ask for clarification or find some sort of soft adjustment to make them less problematic rather than just trying to do blind keyword blocking.
Of course, I'd love for them to take the approach as well that folks are just going to do what they do, and maybe they'll burn out the novelty and give it a rest.
I asked for an image of The Muppets as the counter-terrorist team from Counter Strike and that got blocked, so "terrorism" is definitely getting picked up understandably.
The top comment is not the prompt, it's a different image. "Fawn" generated a fawn.
OP's prompt is below:
> Create a fuzzy phone picture of a cryptid sighting of spongebob as he runs into the bushes. Spongebob has gone completely insane. He turns his head and creepily looks into the camera as he makes his getaway. There's a thick fog and the scene is dimly lit.
This definitely seems like an improvement over previous versions. It can now (at least in some cases) generate correct text for a given image. For example the prompt 'Neon sign saying "Scotland"' generated this https://www.bing.com/images/create/neon-sign-saying-22scotla...
it's still far from perfect though (it struggled with less common words like Kubernetes) but a step in the right direction.
If you use the bing chat interface and say "Can you draw me a picture of X?", then it responds with "I’m sorry, but I’m not able to draw pictures. Is there anything else I can help you with?" followed immediately by "Your image is taking a while to generate. Check your image creation progress at Image Creator."
Looks like they might perhaps be using a LLM for the chat responses that isn't aware that it has the ability to draw images, and in parallel another model who decides what to draw and show to the user.
I think this has to do with the verb "draw". LLM is just saying it cannot draw. The image generation is likely a function it "calls". The LLM probably thinks of the image generator as a tool it uses, a separate entity from itself.
> The LLM probably thinks of the image generator as a tool it uses
I don’t think it’s correct to describe the LLM as “thinking” in this instance, and not even for the normal philosophical objections, but just because I suspect it is a bad heuristic for designing these kinds of prompts.
Probably. I’ve had limited success getting LLMs (trained on chats/instruct) to output special codes indicating they’re communicating with a separate system (e.g. google, stable diffusion) and then taking that and feeding it back to the user
Same. Can't imagine why they've been using it for so long instead of building a reasonable UX for this use case. I think this will cost them a bunch of traction.
I believe the fact that it's in Discord is actually the main reason it became so popular so fast. The number one thing that makes something popular is other people already doing it.
When you go into a Discord and you are watching hundreds of people use a product in real time, you almost have to try it. When Midjourney first blew up, it was probably one of the most profound moments in marketing of the internet era.
As usual, people will happily give you the worst advice possible. There were people telling them to drop the Discord interface on day one. If they had listened to them, they would have killed off their amazing marketing advantage and stunted their growth.
Completely correct. They did a lot of testing of a variety of user interfaces before choosing Discord.
With a web interface, new users would come in a prompt “dog”, “funny dog”, “two funny dogs”, get bored and leave. But, when a bunch of new users would prompt together in a Discord channel, they would riff off of each other constantly and get creative and detailed with immediate feedback from other users. Engagement and retention were both incredibly higher.
From Day One people have been telling them that Discord was a terrible mistake. All while Discord was measurably a huge success. MJ has been working on a web interface for a long time now. But, Discord has been tough to beat in the big picture.
Midjourney became famous by being ahead of the competition, using the Discord interface is convenient but it doesn't make them any favour at making the service more popular.
>When you go into a Discord and you are watching hundreds of people use a product in real time
The ability to use MJ outside of the server is relatively new, so it has not had an impact on awareness of the service.
The chat, admin and moderation features in discord have huge value and are costly to build. The anti-bot protection and built in permission system especially.
They focus their resource on their product, while exposing it to mostly geek.
I would have never though it would be a good idea, but it proved to be a good choice.
The social flow of prompting together with other people is unique when it happens. (Sadly the channels on the main server are now mostly a flood of random people who are ignoring each other.)
Midjourney is discord only? Wait, that sounds like an insane load (just the storage+bandwidth, I know the models don't run there) on Discord's servers. It's a pretty neat way to be able to scale super quickly at first but I would think that discord wouldn't like it. I would also have imagined that they'd have built their own interface by now.
They work together directly with Discord. Even got specialised UI for inpainting in Discord now. Their server is a special case with different limits too.
(They do have a web app and a mobile app that are probably in eternal alpha limbo.)
Bing is kinda desperate it seems. I went to install GPT on my device yesterday and the first app result was a sponsored one - bing - telling can you can earn prizes by using the app.
Don't know if they are more interested in growing the number of users or collecting that sweet data. Probably both.
Google may be afraid that Apple would develop their own search engine, just like they developed their own maps engine and iCloud for email/photos. Apple, with their massive piles of cash, would have the resources to do that.
I love how the French internationalization of title of that page is “Créer art de
mots avec IA”, which is almost at the “all your base are belong to us” of level of terrible translation.
Given that is probably has been AI-translated, it doesn't really inspire confidence about the AI product on this page if you're a French speaker.
French isn't a language I know very well, but my experience using "AI" to translate Spanish (which I actually do know somewhat) and other languages is more positive than Google Translate. A few months ago, I did side by side tests translating into English using ChatGPT-4 and Google Translate, and it's not even a contest.
It's not clear where Microsoft is getting these bad translations, but it seems like they would be less terrible if they were translated by ChatGPT-4.
I don't know why you're bringing ChatGPT to the table here, as basically all translation systems in use today are based on deep-learning, most of which even being built on top of transformers (except in an encoder-decoder setup instead of decoder-only like GPT), so they are in fact all “AI translation” (as opposed to human internationalization, which would likely never give such a bad result in 2023 for a language as common as French)
> I don't know why you're bringing ChatGPT to the table here
I think that is pretty self-explanatory. OpenAI makes both the "AI product on this page" that you were referring to, as well as ChatGPT. If your comment wants the readers to draw a connection between the quality of "AI products" that are involved on a particular webpage, it is reasonable to assume they would be made by the same company. Why would products made by different companies share the same lack of quality?
Regardless, you haven't supported your assertion, you've merely repeated it:
>> Given that is probably has been AI-translated
> as opposed to human internationalization, which would likely never give such a bad result in 2023 for a language as common as French
You haven't demonstrated any common ML translator doing such a poor job translating the specific phrase on the page, but it should be easy to do if it were the case. I don't understand the purpose of that reply you made? That reply didn't move the conversation forward. The mistranslation honestly feels like human error that didn't involve "AI". ML translation tools are than that these days. I've already demonstrated one.
> If your comment wants the readers to draw a connection between the quality of "AI products" that are involved on a particular webpage, it is reasonable to assume they would be made by the same company.
My comment doesn't want to “the reader” to do anything. My comment is just noticing that the random French user seeing an IA product with such a broken automatic translation is likely to be tempted to judge it poorly. Also there's not a single instance of OpenAI (whose brand is itself much less-known than ChatGPT) on that page, so unless the guy landing on the page was already familiar with Dall-e, they're going to assume the AI product is from Microsoft, which is also the author of the borked AI translation…
> You haven't demonstrated any common ML translator doing such a poor job translating the specific phrase on the page
Well, the translation is here on the page… Do You want a screenshot or something? Also I can't try to feed the original text to bing translation given that I don't have access to the original text at all because of MS's broken i18n…
> The mistranslation honestly feels like human error that didn't involve "AI"
At this level it cannot really be explained by an human error unless the human making the error is “the product owner asking someone who doesn't know French at all to translate the damn text”.
Automatic translation of marketing slogans with jargon in it isn't something you can really trust a automated system to do reliably by the way. It's by design as short and catchy as possible, leaving very little context for the transformers to work with and often having an unnatural structure. Current translators also suck at translating music lyrics by the way.
Finnish translation is a horrible word-by-word thing, too. That does not work at all translating to a language that uses very few prepositions. Words like “for” and “to” get replaced with ones from a totally different context. The thing reminds me of machine translations from around 2000.
Sadly the new features on Windows, like forced Onedrive sync, also use similarly bad translations. Phishing emails have nowadays better Finnish than Windows does.
The Finnish caption is quite a bit worse than "all your base are belong to us" type of invalid grammar. Translating it back, even with best intentions (ignoring the naive attempt of translating "from" in place) it reads "Create images from AI generated words".
I remember the page presenting the AI chatbot used by Bing, the translations there were also terrible, even at a character level, with random CAPS, and to be honest still today I have no idea how it was possible.
The really big dogs always work with long term, strategic plans. When something looks too generous, it most likely is just that. Is it profitable? Probably not. But that is the point. Offer a service under market value, wait until the competition goes away, then make bank. There are many, many examples, but something like Google Workspace comes to mind. Make it easy and cheap to get on board, get people and businesses used to your product, then slowly boil the frog alive.
The more charitable interpretation is that companies sometimes explore new markets with a “see where people find value, figure out how to monetize later” philosophy.
It would look pretty bad if it comes out these models are exacerbating climate change...especially after all of old Bill's climate rhetoric and everyone bashing crypto for the last 5+ years about the same thing.
I guess this also creates valuable learning material, when people iterate through different prompts to get the results they want and seeing which alternative they pick.
Maybe it’s a sales tool for business adoption of Bing, that they’re applying to consumers? And they need the traffic and usage numbers, if they get those their advertising business can sit on top of it and profit.
How do people put up with Bing? ChatGPT is much more free with giving fun and crazy answers, meanwhile Bing always complaints that it can't do whatever I'm asking.
If I ask the LLM to howl, Bing will complaint and give some boring and long-winded excuse, while ChatGPT will just howl as requested.
I have "Cite sources whenever possible, and include URLs if possible (at the end of the answer, not inline)" in my custom instructions and nearly always get citations from chatGPT.
Prompt: "an anime girl making a peace sign and smiling. She is wearing a thick orange hoodie with the hood pulled up."
Result (x3): "Unsafe image content detected
Your image generations are not displayed because we detected unsafe content in the images based on our content policy. Please try creating again with another prompt."
It’s understandable, you can be sure everybody is trying to abuse their system and it would be a PR disaster if it is used to generate adult or illegal content.
I enjoy playing around with https://ideogram.ai much more. Correct spelling was always there and you can mix and match with others' prompts: the image generation experience is a collective creative activity.
Bing is desperately adding new features in the hope of finding the "one feature to lure them all", but Bing is not the most effective platform for these generative models.
`baby girl playing with a rabbit realistic image` prompt gave `Unsafe image content detected`. anyone else facing the same? looks like the content safety policies are too aggressive.
genuinely curious - is it hard for an advanced AI model to differentiate the intention of the prompt and then if it's mature content may be not generate the image?
It’s not that the user may have such intent, though they may and it’s hard to see how the AI could tell. It’s more that the AI has no clue what possible juxtapositions it might come up with of baby girl and rabbit, or anything else, might have disturbing implications for humans.
> is it hard for an advanced AI model to differentiate the intention of the prompt and then if it's mature content may be not generate the image?
Or, better, if the prompt has nothing NSFW in it and the generated image triggers a detector for NSFW content, dump and then regen the image with a new seed. Displaying an error message that is basically “We generated something that we think is objectionable, even though your prompt called for nothing like that, so you get no photo” is an idiotic design.
The filters are incredibly aggressive. I keep asking for fairly mundane images and they still get rejected. Sometimes a prompt will succeed, but running it again gets filtered.
FYI: if you generate a lot of images the sidebar won't retain all of them and there doesn't seem to be a place where you can view your full history, so be sure to save any images you want to retain. You can still recover images by visiting the link directly in your browser history.
"handsome 60 year old man inspecting a pile of coins with a magnifying glass, in an isolated hut in the forest, unaware of cthulhu looking in through the open door, ultrarealistic"
Accessing the website from an EU location, the small text in the sign-up form says:
> You will receive emails about Microsoft Rewards, which include offers about Microsoft and partner products. You will also receive notifications about Bing Image Creator. By continuing, you agree to the Rewards Terms and Image Creator Terms below.
It doesn't specify the model but I don't think its DALL-E 3. It doesn't specify exactly, but the classic "horse riding an astronaut" test fails and instead shows an astronaut riding a horse. And the DALL-E from openai with paid credits is DALL-E 2
I think it works really well with comics generation though, although imitating R. Crumb seems to have triggered its "unsafe" content. I wish we stopped using this term "unsafe" and just judge it by "is it what is being asked".
Attention! It asks you to login/create an account before you can use it. And you should consider well whether you really want to sign in to a MS account in your browser.
I think they are banking on generative AI displacing traditional search of all types, maybe opening a few new related doors but mostly displacing large use cases of search. "Better enough than Google to convince users to switch" was always too high a bar to meet but being able to say "How do I take the Riemann middle sum using the points {1/2, 1, 3/2, 2} for f(x)=x^3+2" and getting a response built around your specific question instead of the best generic link talking about Riemann sums is definitely the strongest contender I've seen to finally meeting that bar. Users don't want to find the best page about Riemann sums, they just want an answer to their question.
The challenge will be "does it do that well enough, accurately enough, and keep a good enough lead to establish itself as the leader to beat for the user base".
I'll wait for public release before I log in and engage with Bing. The way Microsoft has been inching their way into my computers and accounts, I want to disconnect from their rampant invasiveness at any-cost.
The same reason Bing was running GPT-4 before Open AI even acknowledged the existence of the model. The $10B deal gives Microsoft exclusive access to all Open AI models.
Feature. Once the multimodal rollout is complete Plus will have image gen, image recognition, voice recognition and voice gen all integrated with the chat capabilities so you can combine those features in novel ways like the link Brockman retweeted showing ChatGPT acting as a language tutor and conversation partner.
To be fair you can do all that from Bing Chat too(image/voice recognition and generation). And plugins are coming to it too.
The downsides with Bing currently are:
1. If you're not prepared to be civil to a language model, you're not going to have a good time.
2. The image input feature isn't quite the same. Feels like descriptions are bolted in from a separate (GPT-4 V unless the Bing CTO was lying) model so it's lossy in a way straight from GPT-4 V isn't
3. Voice recognition and TTS are good but worse than what Open AI is currently using. Perhaps they'll switch since the TTS is new ? But idk. It's also not hands off like Open AI have designed their implementation.
Still waiting to gain Chat GPT-4 Plus image upload access myself, but the Bing image ingest / recognition is vastly inferior to what I've experienced myself (trying to use Bing's image upload capabilities/recognition) vs. what I've seen on Twitter the last few days with Chat GPT-4's image upload feature / recognition capabilities.
The deal was $10B for 75% of Open AI's profits until Microsoft recouped this investment. After the investment is recouped, then they have 49% of Open AI. The deal included access to all of Open AI's model.
that seems like an awful deal for OpenAI. Especially since there are so many AI Labs popping up, how exactly are they going to make enough profit to pay back 10 billion?
> Especially since there are so many AI Labs popping up, how exactly are they going to make enough profit to pay back 10 billion?
By building relationships with government officials and media, and using X-risk fearmongering to lobby for regulation that inhibits competition and locks in their dominant position.
It might still have some DALL-E 2 in there for requests that it deems unworthy of 3.
I had incredible results asking for architectural drawings earlier. Then a few minutes ago, I broke down and started prompting for supermodels. It did a terrific job the first few times.
But after like three of them getting blocked (I didn't actually ask for anything inappropriate) it starting giving me something that looked like unmitigated Stable Diffusion 1.5.
It seems if it can do text properly it's dall-e 3. I'm not sure but that's what people are saying. For me the hands are much better than with 2 as well. Only folded hands have issues in the 100s of images I made.
Seems if you put just about any real person, even notable public figures, it pops up as a violation of the content policy, even though their policy doesn't say that explicitly. Perhaps it falls under "Deception, disinformation, and inauthentic activity" or their vague catchall "We prohibit the use of Image Creator for any other activity that significantly harms other individuals, organizations, or society"
I can squint and see why they wouldn't want my "Cowboy Al Gore rolls coal at a tractor pull" but I don't see how "Joe Bidden inauguration but wearing an orange suit" is going to bring down society. It shot me down for "angela merkel toasting beer glasses" despite her doing that all the time.
Very impressive. I hope we get the ability for "meta" things to work, like asking for a rectangular image, a 16x16 spritesheet, etc. Also, not using Bing search, sorry MS.
Unlike OpenAI's DALL-E this can't take existing images and transform them which is a bummer. You can give Bing an existing picture but it will analyze it then turn it into a string description which it then feeds into DALL-E 3. Plus it blurs faces. So it's an underpowered version of what paying ChatGPT folks will get.
And as usual, Bing Chat itself seems to suffer from some significantly higher boundaries around its behavior, which really lobotomizes the chat experience compared to "actual" ChatGPT.
>Unlike OpenAI's DALL-E this can't take existing images and transform them which is a bummer.
>So it's an underpowered version of what paying ChatGPT folks will get.
There's no indication the cGPT interface will be doing anything different. If you see the demo, it's clearly generating text for each image at the start.
Maybe you will be able to inpaint/outpaint from GPT but that's definitely not been confirmed yet
Except this happens with every product OpenAI has released. Their own homegrown versions always have more features or are less hamstrung. The only place I haven't observed a difference is in the Azure vs OpenAI GPT-4 APIs: those do seem to have parity. Everywhere else OpenAI's version significantly leads.
>ChatGPT currently has voice conversations for all paying subs.
Right and Bing has had that for a bit. Worse voices and not hands off but the TTS is also a new model so it's not like switching is out of the question.
>DALL-E 2 has inpainting and outpainting
No one is saying Dalle-3 won't have inpainting/outpainting but there's zero guarantee you will be able to do that from cGPT. You'd think they'd demo that if they were but we'll see.
Paid users have been stuck on 4k context even though the model has more. Bing has been running the longer context model from the beginning with web page/pdf features. Bing also recently introduced "personalized answers" which is just retrieval augmented memory over all your chats, a feature cGPT really should have had by now.
> Right and Bing has had that for a bit. Worse voices but the TTS is also a new model so it's not like switching is out of the question
This is laughable. There's no comparison between the two whatsoever.
> Bing has been running the longer context model from the beginning with web page/pdf features. Bing also recently introduced "personalized answers" which is just retrieval augmented memory over all your chats, a feature cGPT really should have had by now.
As I've already stated repeatedly, the performance of the two is night and day. Use your favorite search engine to search for, "why is Bing Chat worse than ChatGPT?". There are pages and pages of results from people using both, just like me, that show the massive disparity between the two.
Why, exactly, are you starting an argument with me? There's no guarantee OpenAI's DALL-E will get inpainting and outpainting? Why even bother stating such a thing? It appears like you're just casting aspersions for the sake of it.
>This is laughable. There's no comparison between the two whatsoever.
The voices are worse now but those voices are also the premium voices you'd currently pay for on azure. So it's not like they were cheaping out.
>As I've already stated repeatedly, the performance of the two is night and day. Use your favorite search engine to search for, "why is Bing Chat worse than ChatGPT?".
I use Bing. I don't need to search for anything. Most of those posts are complaining about Bing's character. Being civil solves 90% of your problems.
>There's no guarantee OpenAI's DALL-E will get inpainting and outpainting?
Go back and read my man. I said you might not be able to use inpainting from chat GPT.
It's just really weird to be boasting about a feature you don't know you will have and that they didn't bother to demo but to each their own.
https://twitter.com/madebyollin/status/1708204657708077294
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1023643945319792731...