← Back to context Comment by davebren 17 hours ago The faces...that's nice that it turned a kid's book into an abomination 5 comments davebren Reply Filligree 13 hours ago By image generation standards this is a ridiculously good result. No surprise that people instantly find the new limits, but they are new limits. globular-toast 8 hours ago But it's also straight up plagiarism and still ridiculously bad on so many levels. davebren 12 hours ago It could already copy the art styles from its training data, what is the advancement here? vaulstein 9 hours ago It's interesting that the raccoon is well defined because it was a part of the request. But none of the other Fauna are. keithnz 11 hours ago it's interesting, zoomed out it kind of looks ok, zoomed in.... oh my.
Filligree 13 hours ago By image generation standards this is a ridiculously good result. No surprise that people instantly find the new limits, but they are new limits. globular-toast 8 hours ago But it's also straight up plagiarism and still ridiculously bad on so many levels. davebren 12 hours ago It could already copy the art styles from its training data, what is the advancement here?
globular-toast 8 hours ago But it's also straight up plagiarism and still ridiculously bad on so many levels.
davebren 12 hours ago It could already copy the art styles from its training data, what is the advancement here?
vaulstein 9 hours ago It's interesting that the raccoon is well defined because it was a part of the request. But none of the other Fauna are.
By image generation standards this is a ridiculously good result. No surprise that people instantly find the new limits, but they are new limits.
But it's also straight up plagiarism and still ridiculously bad on so many levels.
It could already copy the art styles from its training data, what is the advancement here?
It's interesting that the raccoon is well defined because it was a part of the request. But none of the other Fauna are.
it's interesting, zoomed out it kind of looks ok, zoomed in.... oh my.