| ▲ | cousin_it 6 hours ago |
| Yeah, I've been mystified for years why they can't just train the "AI look" out of images. Is it, like, something undetectable by machine? But then how come we can often detect it so easily? |
|
| ▲ | Uehreka 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Some of it has to do with Classifier Free Guidance (CFG), a math thing that makes it more likely for a diffusion model to follow what you ask for in the prompt. However, turning up CFG inevitably causes high contrast and certain other artifacts. With that being said, my understanding of that issue is a few years old, people have always said CFG is a havk until models get better at following prompts on their own. So thee “look” that tools like Nano Banana ends up with could be something else. It may or may not be a necessary artifact of some part of the process. |
| |
| ▲ | ViscountPenguin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem isn't the classifier free guidance itself, but the choice of parameters. When a parameter above 1 is chosen you get images which very stronger conform to theme, but which there's not a good mathematical justification for. | |
| ▲ | cubefox 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, it must be some algorithmic thing like CFG, or some other technique, that causes the unrealistic AI look. Because Dall-E 2 didn't have it, but Dall-E 3 did to an extreme degree. Google's Imagen <= 3 also didn't have it, but Imagen 4 (and Nano Banana, which seems to use Imagen 4 in the background) suddenly had significant AI look, apart from much better prompt following and fewer visual mistakes (like too many fingers). |
|
|
| ▲ | Conscat 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think this is fundamental. People will probably dislike whatever it is that AI images look like, because whatever they look like is going to be associated with cheap. They could have a totally different aesthetic and I think most people's conception of cheap would adapt to whatever that is. |
|
| ▲ | minimaxir 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's the opposite: the average person likes the AI look of images (the more "aesthetic" look) and RLHF keep converging toward that. It is entirely possible to prompt engineer away from that style, but that requires effort and knowledge that said average person does not have, so it's stuck in a feedback loop. |
| |
| ▲ | toddmorey 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not true. Think of the problems AI has with creating appetizing food imagery, for example. Images that every human annotator marks as unappealing with a high degree of consensus. The problem is in the rewards, but it's more how they average across domains and contexts, so AI misapplies them. Actually, in human preference evaluations, most of Gen Z in particular extremely adverse to the common look of AI images. So it's not the annotators involved in RLHF, it's the models failing to map to human preferences at the task level. The failure rate is also uneven across domains. Where there are challenges with human annotation, it's not the ability to gauge what's good but rather how to correct what's wrong. Most people can tell when something is off but struggle to articulate why. That's where more domain expertise is required. | | |
| ▲ | minimaxir 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Think of the problems AI has with creating appetizing food imagery, for example. For posterity, the memetic ugly food can be controlled and mostly filtered out with prompt engineering. Here's a quick ad hoc test example which (hopefully) uses the new model: https://chatgpt.com/share/6aebf030-9d38-83e8-a103-3509883905... First image is fine, but attempts to make it more wacky turn it to the AI food slop. So then followup prompts deslopify it, mostly successfully. | | |
| ▲ | demibabs an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Eh, looks like slop still in my opinion. The evenness and density of the teeth especially stands out to me as uncanny. | |
| ▲ | phoghed 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | tbh it got worse every time, the first one is the best lol | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | latentsea 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >This is not true. Think of the problems AI has with creating appetizing food imagery, for example. Images that every human annotator marks as unappealing with a high degree of consensus. I think the way they'll solve it in the end is to create an ultra-high-fidelity simulation of the world including modelling taste and other senses on the level of physics, and then incorporate all of this into the training rewards. I think this is how the machines know what tasty wheat tasted like. |
| |
| ▲ | ion_trapper 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The saddest words of tongue or pen: “you’re not the target demographic” | | | |
| ▲ | casey2 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, you are confusing a model with reality. | |
| ▲ | 0x4e 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I still can’t believe the amount of deepfakes and slop I see just everywhere including food menus and people don’t even seem to notice. This kind of content is here to stay and we’re going to see more and more of it. Unfortunately… | | |
| ▲ | smelendez 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | People definitely seem to notice. I see restaurants post AI flyers and ads to random local Facebook groups and most of the replies are about them being AI slop. I think it’s an uncanny valley problem: People don’t mind if you post a real photo of your food or a cartoon drawing of a pizza or a pig on a spit, but when it’s a weird fake photo with texture issues, it looks gross, especially when it’s food. I think a lot of people who open restaurants probably aren’t extremely online, partly because it would be physically impossible with the amount of work they have to do, but they definitely pay attention -sometimes too much attention — to public online feedback. | | |
| ▲ | strange_quark 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I get why restaurants use the cartoon-looking slop. If you don't particularly care that it signals that you put no effort into your menu or ad or that your restaurant's menu has the same shitty aesthetic as all other slop, fine. It's a cartoon and I could understand someone thinking it looks ok. I absolutely do not get the uncanny-valley images. Those all look gross. Besides not actually being representative of the dish, the images have all sorts of weird texture issues, look too glossy, and are just unappetizing. I cannot understand why a restaurant owner would want to put up an ad that has food that looks straight up gross. |
| |
| ▲ | awesome_dude 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > people don’t even seem to notice. I've been seeing "AI slop" stickers posted on things > I see just everywhere including food menus The places I have seen it in use are the places that would have a handwritten scribble that was misspelt and would be something mocked by people because it was written by ESOL (or vice versa, English speakers trying, but failing, to write in a different language) Honestly, I think the AI slop is a step up - I can read the signs clearly, and they are only mildly offensive Edit: I guess I take the view that - like a pirated movie filmed in a cinema - the only people that use/watch it are people that were never going to pay for the real thing anyway |
|
|
|
| ▲ | vlyan 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| for the same reason they can't train llmisms out of text. |
|
| ▲ | colechristensen 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You are actually a very skilled pattern recognizing machine. There's likely always going to be some bias and purple are going to be able to detect it and the human style will move away from it. |
