Representative take:
If you ask Stable Diffusion for a picture of a cat it always seems to produce images of healthy looking domestic cats. For the prompt “cat” to be unbiased Stable Diffusion would need to occasionally generate images of dead white tigers since this would also fit under the label of “cat”.
It works with other obvious stuff. Put the words “best, good, high quality” in your prompt actually makes the generated images better.
brb throwing away your account
I did not expect to get back to my laptop late on a friday and see someone “Well Akshoewally, If You Just Sing Gentle Sweet Songs To The Prompt then you get the socks you wanted”
but I guess the orange site had a spillover and has me covered today!
leading to the obvious question: if putting the words “best, good, high quality” in your generative AI prompt isn’t a placebo, then why is all the AI art I’ve seen absolute garbage
I forget where I saw it, but the phrase/comparison stuck with me and I think of it often: all of this shit is a boring person’s idea of interesting
but the “just slap some prompt qualifiers on it (to deal with the journalists)” …god. it is of course entirely unsurprising to have an orange poster be so completely assured of their self-correctness to not even question anything, but the outright direct “just dress it up in vibes until they shut up”
you just have to wonder what (and who?) else in their life they treat the same way
Agh this is such a good way of putting it. It has all the signifiers of a thing that has a lot of detail and care and effort put into it but it has none of the actual parts that make those things interesting or worth caring about. But of course it’s going to appeal to people who don’t understand the difference between those two things and only see the surface signifiers (marketers, executives, and tech bros being prime examples of this type of person)
ETA: and also of course this explains why their solution to bias is “just fake it to make the journalists happy.” Why would you ever care about the actual substance when you can just make it look ok from a distance
it was from a post around the time when dall-e and such were first catching social hype, I think. iirc the article was touching specifically on the output product of visual generators
if I find the article again I’ll link it
deleted by creator
all of my generative AI results have been disappointing because I didn’t give it the confidence it needed to succeed
deleted by creator
I checked their other replies. I shouldn’t have.
you’d think I’d learn by now
“best, good, high quality, huge tits, mahoosive bazongas, boobs, popular on artstation”
did you see the thing on 404media with the genai girlfriend service that’s already serving out totally batshit outputs?
honestly I kinda wish 404 was more aggressive about putting some warning clickers on some of those images and certain paragraphs in those stories; I want to read the articles but they’re printing a few details that I’d rather bleach from my brain. I mean kudos to the journalist for swimming in that cesspool (jizzpool?) but please protect me a little more kthxbai.
I looked up the article and, well,
no part of my brain is surprised that the porn AI grifters pivoted straight from NFTs and VR masturbation aids, but I am somewhat surprised at how readily they admitted it, given how many AI cultists we’ve already met who used all the terminology and rationalizations of crypto grifters but suddenly fell silent when we asked them how much money they lost gambling on the crypto bubble when it burst
@dgerard @froztbyte “ships from China in 12-14 days”
Amazing as that wasn’t your point or why the post was bad.
you : ow god they said ‘get rid of racial profiling by more profiling and adding secret prompts’
reply : ‘you can change prompts, this can improve things!’
But yeah weird guy, looking at their other posts on lemme banning them was a good move.