Qwen's flamingo is artistically far more interesting. It's a one-eyed flamingo with sunglasses and a bow tie who smokes pot. Meanwhile Opus just made a boring, somewhat dorky flamingo. Even the ground and sky are more interesting in Qwen's version
replyBut in terms of making something physically plausible, Opus certainly got a lot closer
Given adherence is a more significant practical barrier, it's probably the better signal. That is, if we decide too look for signal here.
replyThe fundamental challenge of AI is preventing unprompted creativity. I can spin up a random initialization and call all of it's output avante garde if we want to get creative.
replyI recently fell down the rabbithole of AI-generated videos, and realised that many of the "flaws" that make them distinctive, such as objects morphing and doing unusual things, would've been nearly impossible or require very advanced CGI to create.
reply[flagged]
reply"artistically interesting" is IMHO both a subjective and 'solved' problem. These models are trained with an "artistically interesting" reward model that tries to guide the model towards higher quality photos.
replyI think getting the models to generate realistic and proportional objects is a much harder and important challenge (remember when the models would generate 6 fingers?).
The Opus bike isn't very physically plausible though.
replyQwen, at least, can draw a complete bicycle frame. The opus frame will snap in half and can’t steer.
replyEven the first one - Qwen added extra details in the background sure. But he Pelican itself is a stork with a bent beak and it's feet is cut off it's legs. While impressive for a local model, I don't think it's a winner.
replyDid you see opus bike though for that same test? I know it is about the flamingo but that is bad.
replyIt's a 3B model. It should not be this close. Debating their artistic qualities is missing the point.
reply35B, but your point stands I think.
reply