I thought that was parents point, that currently they're using so shitty AI generated logos, that even if we despise that as a concept, at least better models output slightly less sloppy shit. But re-reading it, I'm not sure that was the right initial reading.
replyI am wondering if in 2-3 years AI will be heads and shoulders above us in both images and text. Then will we continue to see the slop accusations? Maybe its slop is better than most of our work.
reply> Then will we continue to see the slop accusations?
replyIf it doesn't look like the food you're about to purchase, yes? Why is this even a question in this context.
Yes, even though fast food places would previously use every food photography trick in the book to make the food look good, there was at least some relation between the menu and what you actually get, which people just seem completely fine with dispensing because the affordances of image generators work against including product photography
reply(Have also heard about people - not just scammers/spam operations - using generated pictures and descriptions for dating profiles and real estate ads, and I cannot understand what outcome they expect when someone follows up and immediately realizes what's up)
"Here is a picture of the dish, make it look nicer and use that as a reference"
reply> "Here is a picture of the dish, make it look nicer and use that as a reference"
replyThat's not a function of improvement in models, though, which was the question. You could literally do that today, no need to wait for models in "2-3 years".
"Users will voluntarily prompt better to avoid misleading people" will be the "people can simply write memory safe C" of the late 2020s
reply“Stop calling it slop you guys, I’ll have you know I am even sloppier”
replyIt might be a sub-comment on a tweet that was fairly viral last week. Or it might be serious. We’ll never know.
reply