This is the surprising part. People seem to intuit that images are richer and more complex than words; a picture is worth a thousand words. But apparently this isn't true? Or perhaps our training methods for text models are way worse than those we use for image models.
Imagine having this discussion (or the comment thread as a whole) using exclusively pictures, for example... at least you can describe an image with words (even if the result is very lossy), most of the time it's not even possible to describe a text with images.
In my view, language is infinitely more versatile and powerful than images, and hence harder to learn.
The typical text to image objective function is more about mapping/translation. Map this text to this image. Neural Networks are lazy. They'll only learn what is necessary for the task. And mapping typically requires fewer abstractions than prediction.
It's like how bilingual llms can be much better translators than traditional map this sentence to this sentence translators. https://github.com/ogkalu2/Human-parity-on-machine-translati...
Simplifying a bit, mapping (which is essentially the main goal of image generators and especially transformer generators) is just less complex than prediction.
It's like how bilingual llms can be much better translators than traditional map this sentence to this sentence translators. https://github.com/ogkalu2/Human-parity-on-machine-translati...