←back to thread

1503 points participant3 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.228s | source
Show context
MgB2 ◴[] No.43574927[source]
Idk, the models generating what are basically 1:1 copies of the training data from pretty generic descriptions feels like a severe case of overfitting to me. What use is a generational model that just regurgitates the input?

I feel like the less advanced generations, maybe even because of their limitations in terms of size, were better at coming up with something that at least feels new.

In the end, other than for copyright-washing, why wouldn't I just use the original movie still/photo in the first place?

replies(13): >>43575052 #>>43575080 #>>43575231 #>>43576085 #>>43576153 #>>43577026 #>>43577350 #>>43578381 #>>43578512 #>>43578581 #>>43579012 #>>43579408 #>>43582494 #
gertlex ◴[] No.43575231[source]
What if the word "generic" were added to a lot of these image prompts? "generic image of an intergalactic bounty hunter from space" etc.

Certainly there's an aspect of people using the chat interface like they use google: describe xyz to try to surface the name of a movie. Just in this case, we're doing the (less common?) query of: find me the picture I can vaguely describe; but it's a query to a image /generating/ service, not an image search service.

replies(2): >>43576049 #>>43591833 #
1. Hard_Space ◴[] No.43591833[source]
If Indiana Jones (for example) defines a genre, then 'generic' will produce Indiana Jones.