Comment by jjcm
2 days ago
Comparison samples with GPT-Image-2.5 for UI design work:
Starship landing page
Krea 3: https://image.non.io/80b85aaa-286b-4ad7-b3ae-cfab4b491216.we...
GPT-Image-2.5: https://image.non.io/19c5f032-cbc7-4034-9682-3aba451bd669.we...
Fashion history website
Krea 3: https://image.non.io/a6e61219-963c-4921-b453-738960e03308.we...
GPT-Image-2.5: https://image.non.io/c067fd76-9c7e-46c2-a8fd-0b0931bf93f6.we...
Banking website
Krea 3: https://image.non.io/3a1e7b50-36e7-418c-ab47-368ce4f01948.we...
GPT-Image-2.5: https://image.non.io/b96a7e00-3289-4044-90de-e0f86a2ca55e.we...
Overall Krea 3 isn't near GPT-Image-2.5 in terms of visual creativity in this space, but it still should be commended for its ability to render small text details. That said despite it specifying you can add exact hex codes as color reference, I've found that they tend to leak into the design (check the valuation panel of the banking website - notice to the right of the "fixed indexed 7-yr" there's a hex code that made it into the image).
I'd love to get my hands on this to post-train and see if it can be pushed further in this space. I actually see a lot of potential for the model, despite the clear differences in the examples above.
That Banking website is a good example of GPT-Image-2.5 having absolutely no self control, to a point I am just shocked they havent been working to fix it. It's like the first thing the model does is "generate 100 slogans" and then try and figure out how to cram them all into the image.
You see it constantly, and its worse with GPT than Gemini models, but they both do it. They seem to think they need to tell not show. They cant not annotate their thoughts into the image. A lot of the time you see either random signs on posts added, tshirts with text describing the story, or hand written annotation over the image.
There's really no reason this should be a problem anymore on default settings, or that everybody should still be getting the exact same style of edgy poster out of GPT with icons for bullets, and lists that add nothing jammed into the image. They need to have some kind of seed library of templates they start from, and higher temperature on selecting different styles.
A reasonable conclusion, but you don't have all the data here in this particular instance. These are all part of a set of benchmark prompts I have that are designed to try and push the images to their extremes. The banking one is dense because the prompt itself specifies each of these things - the goal with this test is to see how well it can handle many different UI elements. Here's an excerpt from the json blob that is used as the prompt:
That's not to say that GPT-Image-2.5 doesn't have a certain smell to it though. It definitely has its isms.
Not sure that UI design is necessarily the ideal or even recommended use case for image models.
I very firmly disagree. IMO image models are extremely under-used in this area.
Just for context, I ran design systems at Figma for 5 years / led their first prompt->design stream before quitting to make my own startup in this space.
Image models are trained on visual creativity, color usage, whitespace, etc - all the ingredients you need for good design principles. Where they struggle is often with information density and text rendering, which LLMs excel at. You can use the best parts of both of them though - use an image model for the initial design and an LLM to convert it to code.
One thing that's very telling is with openai's sites feature, in its chain of thought it actually renders out an image first as a design reference, then builds towards that.
I actually was just talking about this with a peer. He was saying that people inside labs and data brokers use image models for RL training of LLMs to get better at these sort of tasks, which would make sense as a way to try to embed the knowledge into the LLM - similar to how Astra was clearly trained with more CAD, 3D, and Robotics in mind.
At least Krea doesn't have the GPT-image shimmer! All of the GPT-image images are immediately recognizable as AI.
Or the gpt-image "fried" texture. Interestingly the best approach I've found so far is to use gpt-image for the initial design, but nano banana for the asset export once I have the design. IE in the case of the "Annui" design, I'd take that design and its backing json structure, hand it off to Opus to build it in html, then use nano banana to build out the images of the statues/background images.
You just gotta use the best parts of all of them :)
I'm unfortunately getting the gpt-image fried thing: https://imgur.com/OYY1MSa
Which is interesting... after gpt-image-2 came out with this bug replacing the piss yellow filter, it seems like every other release except Google's have the same issue.
Off the top of my head, this exact artifact appeared in Qwen, Grok, and now Krea.
It makes me wonder if gpt-image-2 is being used to bootstrap post-training, or if their images are just so ubiquitous it's turned into a sort of "virus".
Thank you haha
And benchmarks do not account for it sadly
Also, sometimes you want to do “ugly” things on purpose or add imperfections like film grain and such
> Also, sometimes you want to do “ugly” things on purpose or add imperfections like film grain and such
This is pretty trivial with an extra sentence added to your prompt, for all the models. Getting them to make normal looking people is trickier.
1 reply →
The NCC-1701-D really is the default starship in our culture and the training corpus, isn't it.
oh yea, we are working on enabling people to fine-tune it
yes on gpt-image 2.5 being great at times, at almost 1 order of magnitude more of the cost per image and way slower tho
EDIT: do you find that a lot of people use diffusion models for UI mockups? i’ve always been surprised that people wouldn’t use LLMs exclusively for that instead
> do you find that a lot of people use diffusion models for UI mockups? i’ve always been surprised that people wouldn’t use LLMs exclusively for that instead
Not yet, but it's what I quit my role at Figma to make a bet on for my startup. In my experience diffusion is a far, far better creative designer than LLMs. LLMs are trained for consistent output, which makes sense for a billing function, but leads to some very obvious smell when doing frontend work (take claude design as an example - it's often very obvious what comes out of it). Image models have a bit more creativity baked in, and are trained on color usage, whitespace, and visual balance a lot more. I've found the image->html approach leads to much better results, basically using an image model as an architect.
Would love to be connected with the team for when you all are ready to finetune it. My email is j@diffui.ai
When VL models started becoming popular a while back, a relatively common workflow was to use generative models (like the original Nano Banana) to generate initial UI mockups and then throw the images at a VL model to convert them into CSS and HTML.
However feels like LLMs such as Opus 5.5 in particular are surprisingly adept at generating UI mockups right off the bat these days. And since they’re already code, they’re much easier to modify and tweak.
Exactly, it seems to me like a workflow that is not “Bitter Lesson”-pilled and was a workaround non-capable LLMs.
We are also seeing it with people using Opus 5.5 to code shaders, motion graphics, and websites more as opposed to using, say, after effects.
1 reply →
Thank you. This shows that Krea 3 website isn't being honest, and this is what I hate about all those AI tools: the cherrypicking. Stop wasting our time!
And honestly, the whole thing looks like an ad-for-an-ad.
They are indeed a little bland, but the GPT is very far from creative either, just busier and way over the top.