No API yet, and given the slowness I imagine it will cost much more than the $0.03+/image of competitors.
No API yet, and given the slowness I imagine it will cost much more than the $0.03+/image of competitors.
When I first read the parent comment, I thought, maybe this is a long-term architecture concern...
But your message reminded me that we've been here before.
Gemini "integrates" Imagen 3 (a diffusion model) only via a tool that Gemini calls internally with the relevant prompt. So it's not a true multimodal integration, as it doesn't benefit from the advanced prompt understanding of the LLM.
Edit: Apparently Gemini also has an experimental native image generation ability.
The (no longer, I guess) industry-leading features people actually want are hidden away in some obscure “AI studio” with horrible usability, while the headline Gemini app still often refuses to do anything useful for me. (Disclaimer: I last checked a couple of months ago, after several more of mild amusement/great frustration.)
They haven't been focusing attention on images because the most used image models have been open source. Now they might have a target to beat.
That's overly pessimistic. Diffusion models take an input and produce an output. It's perfectly possible to auto-regressively analyze everything up to the image, use that context to produce a diffusion image, and incorporate the image into subsequent auto-regressive shenanigans. You'll preserve all the conditional probability factorizations the LLM needs while dropping a diffusion model in the middle.
The results are ground breaking in my opinion. How much longer until an AI can generate 30 successive images together and make an ultra realistic movie?
im not going to get super hyperbolic and histrionic about “entitlement” and stuff like that, but… literally this technology did not exist until like two years ago, and yet i hear this all the time. “oh this codegen is pretty accurate but it’s slow”, “oh this model is faster and cheaper (oh yeah by the way the results are bad, but hey it’s the cheapest so it’s better)”. like, are we collectively forgetting that the whole point of any of this is correctness and accuracy? am i off-base here?
the value to me of a demonstrably wrong chat completion is essentially zero, and the value of a correct one that anticipates things i hadn’t considered myself is nearly infinite. or, at least, worth much, much more than they are charging, and even _could_ reasonably charge. it’s like people collectively grouse about low quality ai-generated junk out of one side of their mouths, and then complain about how expensive the slop is out of the other side.
hand this tech to someone from 2020 and i guarantee you the last thing you’d hear is that it’s too slow. and how could it be? yeah, everyone should find the best deals / price-value frontier tradeoff for their use case, but, like… what? we are all collectively devaluing that which we lament is being devalued by ai by setting such low standards: ourselves. the crazy thing is that the quickly-generated slop is so bad as to be practically useless, and yet it serves as the basis of comparison for… anything at all. it feels like that “web-scale /dev/null” meme all over again, but for all of human cognition.
The animation is a lie. The new 4o with "native" image generating capabilities is a multi-modal model that is connected to a diffusion model. It's not generating images one token at a time, it's calling out to a multi-stage diffusion model that has upscalers.
You can ask 4o about this yourself, it seems to have a strong understanding of how the process works.
A model may not have many facts about itself, but it can definitely see what is inside of its own context, and what it sees is a call to an image generation tool.
Finally, and most convincingly, I can't find a single official source where OpenAI claims that the image is being generated pixel-by-pixel inside of the context window.