The example of the cat and detective hat shows that even with the latest update, it isn't "editing" the image. The generated cat is younger, with bigger, brighter eyes, more "perfect" ears.
I found that when editing images of myself, the result looked weird, like a funky version of me. For the cat, it looks "more attractive" I guess, but for humans (and I'd imagine for a cat looking at the edited cat with a keen eye for cat faces), the features often don't work together when changed slightly.
Chatgpt 4o's advanced image generation seems to have a low-resolution autoregressive part that generates tokens directly, and an image upscaling decoding step that turns the (perhaps 100 px wide) token-image into the actual 1024 px wide final result. The former step is able to almost nail things perfectly, but the latter step will always change things slightly. That's why it is so good at, say, generating large text but still struggles with fine text, and will always introduce subtle variations when you ask it to edit an existing image.
Has anyone tried putting in a model that selects the editing region prior to the process? Training data would probably be hard, but maybe existing image recognition tech that draws rectangles would be a start.
The chain is spazzing out in every shot like it's tightening and loosening over and over again. Mid drives already wear out chains quickly. Seems like this is just asking to snap a chain
There is lots of human feedback. This isn’t a game with an end state that it can easily play against itself. It needs problems with known solutions, or realistic simulations. This is why people wonder if our own universe is a simulation for training an asi.
There are still some tropes from the GPT-3 days that are fundamental to the construction of LLMs that affect how they can be used and will not change unless they no longer are trained to optimize for next-token-prediction (e.g. hallucinations and the need for prompt engineering)
Each new model opens up new possibilities for my work. In a year it's gone from sort of useful but I'd rather write a script, to "gets me 90% of the way there with zero shots and 95% with few-shot"
I think it might also be because "Swinging" is a word from a previous era and some/many of the young LGBTQ+ people are against learning from their elders.
> young LGBTQ+ people are against learning from their elders
No, there's a missing generation. As (previously) one of those, my generation is now the "elders", and we had to learn in a strange, weirdly sheltered way. Our elders were dead or hiding. The topics were taboo, the representation garbage, and the content online? Often blocked in the place we had internet access.
I do a lot of teaching to my younger queer friends. Sometimes I have to do a lot of research on a topic before I can give an answer.
In addition, Swingers weren't talked about in any part of my growing up. It wasn't until as an adult I looked at my partner and said "Oh, they're having a key party" at an exhibit of a model 50s-era home in the midwest.
Sorry, yes, I wasn't intending to give the impression that I was ignoring the many, many that died in the 80s during the AIDS epidemic. I was intending to refer to Millenials as the elders and Gen Alpha as the "young LGBTQ+".
At least what I see on TikTok has reflected a lot of the elder (Millenial) LGBTQ+ people becoming periodically frustrated with the younglings for not listening to them as they talk about exactly the frustrations / issues the new ones are going through or aren't having to go through.
Weirdly, swingers *were* talked about in my family when I was young.
Google seems to think monogamish is the new word for it, but that is a really confusing word (I thought it meant you can cuddle puddle with your friends).
100k out of *how many out homosexual individuals during that era in the area being studied*?
And it's not just raw numbers, either. It's how many lives / families were impacted in this unique way.
To add, it's also 100k that were almost entirely in a single demographic that was explicitly and implicitly being harmed by those in power during that era.
I want to add more. The whole “30 is gay death” expression, I bet, especially since it’s not really a thing anymore, was greatly influenced by there being very few gay people over 30. Because the rest were dead.
Hey btw I absolutely did mean "a generational cohort of lgbtq people" not the broader total population. Which would make no sense, so I assumed no one would interpret my meaning that way. Thanks for calling me a bigot and then starting a fight with these other people about it though.
(And if you want a good history of horror in broadly-speaking early-middle 20th century Eastern Europe, I suggest reading Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder.)
I found that when editing images of myself, the result looked weird, like a funky version of me. For the cat, it looks "more attractive" I guess, but for humans (and I'd imagine for a cat looking at the edited cat with a keen eye for cat faces), the features often don't work together when changed slightly.
reply