They didnt include chatgpt in the comparison chart. That tells a lot

That is fair to point out. For those who don't know, ChatGPT Image 2 has an absurd ELO of 1387; compared to the #2 model at 1273, it's over 100 points higher (https://arena.ai/leaderboard/text-to-image). The tradeoff is latency, and ChatGPT Image 2 at High is...slow (~2 minutes at 1024x1024). In both cases it would have skewed the charts here to uselessness.

I want to do a writeup on ChatGPT Image 2 but at this point I don't think people care about nuanced image generation anymore...even though ChatGPT Image 2 crushes all my existing tests.

	▲	vunderba 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That arena leaderboard has some questionable results. Anyone who's used these models would know that ranking HiDream above Krea2 is a pretty hot take. Many of these ELO comparative tests (ArtificialAnalysis is guilty as hell on this as well) also have other problems such as a considerable number of "amateur judges" tending to prioritize aesthetics over actual instruction-following given the prompt. Also (less a critique of Arena.AI necessarily), but the MAI models are so incredibly locked down (e.g. censored) as to be functionally useless. I have a sneaking suspicion its fallout from Tay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(chatbot)
	▲	shmolyneaux 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I definitely appreciated your post about Nano Banana Pro. It's also a genuinely useful time-capsule for how these systems evolve and where they fall short. I've preferred the output of ChatGPT Image 2. I think a post would be very helpful for folks to see what they're missing.