Personally I think DALL-E does better quality, especially at photorealistic stuff.
Here's a few of mine, many photorealistic.
3,375 karma · joined October 10, 2011
contact me at rjbrown at gmail
Here's a few of mine, many photorealistic.
Yours does too. Very different feel than mine, but beautiful.
https://www.karmatics.com/stuff/cyborgdog.jpg
I didn't even bother saying "photorealistic", but I did give lighting hints:
"tricolor english shepherd future cyborg parts on head and front leg, very futuristic tech, replaces side of head and eye, black anodized aluminum, orange leds, big raised camera eye where normal eye would be, with colorful rich deep teal artificial iris, in worn future urban park with pond and stone bridge but pretty near dark with streetlight above beautiful dog and technology"
Do you consider these plastic looking?
https://www.karmatics.com/stuff/dalle.html
One important thing is to give long prompts with lots of adjectives.
That said, you can sort of get a default look and feel if you just give a short prompt, and then it will tend toward the ones that are favored by RLHF. I prefer very long prompts.... as long as it will allow.
So if you do "a cool treehouse" you'll get sort of the default look. It will be very different if you say "treehouse, naturally occurring, in an old beautiful tree with branches that are low and spread widely and have lots of character and hanging moss and thick bark and curvy roots and mushrooms on a rocky outcropping from a mountainside. photograph, golden hour, sun through trees, damp from rain. Treehouse is part of tree, with fractal forms and live shaped wood and stone and stained glass and glowiness. art nouveau, gorgeous colors and fantasy design"
It's funny that the same people who complain that AI is "cheating" and uncreative, often are the ones who go to so little effort to get good results. It's not like it takes any arcane knowledge to get good images, but if you can use some imagination and string a lot of descriptive words together you can get so much better results.
It seems like with billions of investment, they could figure that out. It's commonly discussed as an extremely difficult problem to solve and the most important problem to solve in the most talked about industry on the planet. I'm having a problem believing that its something that is so easy to solve.
Are you suggesting that even with that much money, they have to do things the way things are "overwhelmingly" done, as opposed to being able to say "hey, we need it done this way instead, because it's important and we can pay for it."
It just seems pretty bizarre to think that the highest of high tech, that is massively funded, doesn't have the clout to just fix that in a heartbeat, if that's really where the problem is.
With billions in funding, and bad results causing bad press etc, you think that OpenAI would not have given this a bit of consideration?
How do you know this?
Just taking a wild guess, but I'd think a company with billions of funding, and a ton of people trying to find flaws in what they are producing, would have some processes in place to incentivize quality as well as quality.
What you are suggesting is that a company that produces a product that is based on balancing trillions of floating point numbers makes core business decisions in the most simplistic black and white terms. "Hey, lets just go with a one and a zero on this." Bizarre assumption.
Maybe I'm just good at prompting, and I'm not trying to trick it, but I don't see this "superficially convincing bullshit." Can you show me a chat where you have sincerely prompted it and gotten something that matches that description?
I often see responses that are better than I could have given even if given hours to research and compose them, and I'm a pretty good writer and researcher.
Here, since I'm asking you to share one where it fails as you say it does by creating "superficially convincing bullshit", I'll share several where it succeeds.
https://chat.openai.com/share/523d0fec-34d3-40c4-b5a1-81c77f...
https://chat.openai.com/share/e09c4491-fd66-4519-92d6-d34645...
https://chat.openai.com/share/233a5ae2-c726-4ddc-8452-20248e...
https://chat.openai.com/share/53e6bda1-fe97-41ce-8f5c-89d639...
https://chat.openai.com/share/19f80ea9-e6be-4ac3-9dd4-7ea15c...
RLHF typically employees humans, and that can be time consuming in itself, but less time consuming than creating content. And their efforts can be amplified. If they are actually rating unpaid humans, that is, users, who are willing to provide feedback and are also prompting the system. Plenty of people are happy to do this for free, and some of it happens, just as a byproduct of them doing what they're already doing, creating content and choosing, which comes out good and which one doesn't. Every time I am working through a coding problem with chatGPT, and it makes mistakes and I tell her about those mistakes, it can be learning from that.
People can also come up with coding problems that can run and test itself on. As a simple example, I imagine it's trying to write a sorting algorithm. It can also write a testing function simply tests that it is correctly sorted. They can also time its results, they can count how many steps had to do in that sense it can work just like Alpha zero, where there is an objective goal, which is to do it with the least clock cycles, and there's a way to test whether and how well it is a achieving that goal. While that may be a limited number of programming problems that that works for, by practicing on that type of problem it will presumably get better at other types of problems, just like humans do.
This is exactly what large language models do, they find a way to objectively test their writing ability, which is by having them predict words and things that they've never seen before. In a sense it's different from actually writing new creative content, but it is practicing skills that you need to tap into when you are creating new content. Interestingly, a lot of people will dismiss them as simply being word predictors, but that's not really what they're doing. They're predicting words when they're training, but when they're actually generating new content, they're not "predicting" words (you can't predict your own decisions, that doesn't make sense), they are choosing words.
Right now it would be pretty easy to simply take ChatGPT output, feed it back in in a different thread (or even to a different model, such as Claude), and ask it which items in the response should be fact-checked, and also just to point out any that seem obviously wrong.
The former should be really easy to do, it doesn't have to know whether it's right or wrong -- it just has to know that it is a checkable fact. For instance the well known case of a lawyer citing a non-existent case from ChatGPT, it could say "this case should be fact checked to see that it is real and says what I said it said". Based on my experience with chatGPT (GPT-4 especially), this should be well within its current capabilities. (I'm going to try an experiment now.)
They could probably start having it do this behind the scenes, and check its own facts and learn from it so it learns when it is likely to hallucinate and learn to pick up on it. Even if for safety reasons it's not going out and hitting the web every time you're asking a question, it could be giving you a list at the end of the response of all the things within the response that you might want to check for yourself, maybe suggesting Google searches you should do.
Pretty soon ChatGPT will be able to do a lot of training by iterating on its own output, such as by writing code and analyzing the output (including using vision systems).
Here's an interesting thing I noticed last night. I have been making a lot of images that have piano keyboards in them. DALL-E 3 makes some excellent images otherwise (faces and hands mostly look great), but it always messes up the keyboards, as it doesn't seem to get how black keys are in alternating groups of two and three.
But I tried getting chatgpt to analyze an image, using its new "vision" capabilities, and the first thing it noticed was that the piano keys were not properly clustered. I said nothing about that, I just asked it "what is wrong with this image" and it immediately found that. What if it could feed this sort of thing back in, using similar logic to Alpha Zero?
That's just a tiny hint of what is to come. Sure, it typically needs human generated data for most things. It's already got thousands of times more than any human has looked at. It will also be able to learn from human feedback, for instance a human could tell it what it got wrong in a response (whether regular text, code, or image), and explain in natural language where it deviated from what was expected. It can learn which humans are reliable, so it can minimize the number of paid employees doing RLHF, using them mostly to rate (unpaid) humans who choose to provide feedback. Even if most users opt out of giving this sort of feedback, there will be plenty to give it new, good information.
ChatGPT today is like a backhoe compared to a team of human with shovels. You still need a person who knows how to operate it, and their skills are different from those who dig with shovels. A bad backhoe operator is worse than any number of humans with shovels.
Pretty soon it will be able to learn by running its own code and testing it by looking at its output, including with its "vision."
Personally I don't understand the hate. There are a lot of frustrations in this city, but they really aren't one of them. They all seem to drive perfectly and predictably, by my observation. I understand that there will be issues like this, but none of them are realistically safety issues.
I look forward to a day where driverless taxis become cheap enough (due to lack of having to pay someone, and supply and demand) that more people can choose to be carless. I still need a car because I need to get my kid to school outside the city. But now that she doesn't need a booster seat, and now that Cruise vehicles seem ok with having a medium sized dog in them (kind of a problem previously if I want to take my dog across town to a park), I'm almost at the point I could get rid of my car and use public transportation as well as robotaxis when needed. So much space in the city is taken up by parked cars, and this should free up a lot.
At the very least I think having robotaxis will allow a lot of two car families to only have one car.
I understand the concerns about lost jobs but what do you want to do, bring back switchboard operators and elevator operators? If a machine can do the job, I just don't think that's a good use of a human.
Would you care to write one? Feel free to do one quickly, such as something a busy ER doctor would be able to put together. Otherwise, though, it's very hard to accept the idea that ChatGPT did such a poor job without something to compare it to.
Thanks!
Right now ChatGPT tends to write formally and cautiously, for rather obvious reasons. Better to err on that side than the other. With a combination of thoughtful prompting, and AIs getting better over time, most of the arguments against using them in such situations fade.
Remember, the original article is not talking about different languages, it is simply about a doctor using it to help out. Obviously the doctor can scan it prior to showing it to anyone.
But that's what I needed to hear. I didn't need whatever "human spark" that you imagine (but that I personally doubt you can actually demonstrate).
So on that note, why don't you show me what you'd write, if you were trying to be helpful to someone in that situation? I'm genuinely interested in seeing if you can write something that isn't formulaic, that has that human spark you speak of, and that is otherwise better than the response that a machine gave me.
I get it if that's too much time and effort to do, but really, it shouldn't take a lot of time at all. At least, not if you are suggesting that a doctor in an ER should take a break from saving lives to do such a thing. So please, just write a paragraph or two that shows what you'd say if a friend came to you looking for empathy in such a situation.
"it's a sadly bland example of what some people consider meaningful."
Again, let's hear what you think is better, the ball is in your court. As it stands, based solely on my interaction with you as well as my above interaction with ChatGPT, it looks like machines do empathy better than humans. But I am open minded to the idea that you can actually do better than the machine. Let's hear it.
Yes it probably helps that I didn't ask it for advice, rather than just kind of talk to it as if it was a sounding board. I guess I'm weird that way, in that I feel it is important to talk to an AI like it is human and has feelings (saying everything from "please" to "wow that was amazing, thanks"), even if only for myself.
But I've become convinced it gets better responses. Which isn't altogether surprising, if you think about how LLMs work.
Of course, you can actually tell ChatGPT to change its style and mannerisms. Here's an example when I was experimenting with this. It went a bit over the top in the other direction, but only because I was so explicit about asking to to be casual.
https://chat.openai.com/share/07f6f9aa-de02-4a0c-8eeb-574eef...
Often, sure.
A few days ago I asked ChatGPT about a situation that needed compassion and wisdom. I thought it did way better than the 5 or 6 people I had talked to about it.
https://chat.openai.com/share/2dd26347-3fbd-483f-b567-21c040...
(ignore the first question, which was silly)
FYI, we're going to give the dog another chance.... but I was glad ChatGPT didn't push for that. I think ChatGPT answered it pretty close to how someone well trained in both mental health therapy and dealing with dogs with severe behavior issues might handle it.
Interestingly, what you describe is the sort of black and white thinking that the author does, in the article about motivation/discipline as well as the article on Muslim Uber drivers. They are both sort of ranty, and show a lack of empathy toward people who aren't like the author. In that sense think the racist article is very helpful in taking in the first one.
The article itself isn't helpful to those of us who struggle with productivity issues -- well, at least not this one. I know the situations I do well in and I know the situations I do poorly at. I've been both the proverbial "rock star" developer who had a ton of highly prominent contributions, and I've been the one who got fired for missing deadline after deadline after constantly overestimation my ability to crank out code like I'm in a job interview. I know how hard a thing it is to get the balance right so I stay productive. This article does very little except make me feel bad about myself.
I see absolutely no problem with that. The app is not showing videos nor is otherwise addictive in any sense, so what exactly is the problem? Is it simply because it falls under the label "app"? Therefore it must be just as problematic as apps that show videos or otherwise try to keep users engaged for as long as possible?
Your complaint is as absurd as saying "oh you think you are risking a head injury by riding a skateboard? Here's a helmet for that!" I mean, both skateboards and helmets are sports equipment, so it must be misguided to recommend addressing a safety issue with sports equipment with another piece of sports equipment. That's the logic you are using here.
Usually when I am drawn to an addictive web site or app (YouTube and Quora being the big ones for me), it is pulling me away from some other app I should be using instead, such as VC Code, which I am supposed to be using for my job. Again, not all apps are equally problematic.
I've used the selfcontrol app and similar apps for my own issues, and they work. That is not bad advice at all.
Also, addiction lies on a spectrum. I don't know if my issues count as true addiction or not, but they are problems for me. And I have good results with things like the selfcontrol app (which I miss now that I work on windows), and I have used other various mechanisms to help with behavioral tendencies I have that could benefit from external control. As a non-app example.... am I addicted to cannabis? I don't know. I do know I do better when I use a timer lock so I can reduce my temptation to use it at inappropriate times (i.e. hours I want to be getting work done), without eliminating it entirely (since I enjoy it and truly believe I get benefits from it). I suppose if I was a true addict, I'd just walk ten minutes to the pot store every time I got a craving. But I don't, because addictive tendencies lie on a spectrum. Same concept.
I have similar problems, and used to use selfcontrol when I was primarily a mac user. (I haven't found anything like it for windows, which I now must use for work)
Your app seems to be about phones....? My issue is more with distractions on computers, since I work on a computer with multiple big monitors and I'm far more likely to waste time with things there rather than on a phone.
Anyway, we're on a web site right now. Isn't any comment on this thread similarly "misguided" (including your own), since that is one more bit of content for the addicted person to consume?
No matter where you draw the line between "done by computers" and "done by a human simply using a computer as a tool," there will always be a lot of gray area.
Also, if I spend a year creating my masterpiece, and some kid releases a copy of it for free and claims that that's ok just because it's "not for profit," there is still a problem.