• MacN'CheezusOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    To be fair, it did spit out a couple of completely nonsensical images afterwards:

    I think the AI might be biased against dogs.

      • MacN'CheezusOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, I do remember the meme about that being posted here a few weeks ago.

    • lseif@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      did it give you the images in base64 from an llm, or from an image generation model ?

      • ChaoticNeutralCzech@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think you can guess that part. I doubt a current LLM can create a valid PNG, even if it’s just a 1x1px one that has been created before. This is partially because PNGs have a checksum and the LLM has definitely not seen enough PNGs in base64 to figure out the algorithm, and is not optimized to calculate checksums. In fact, I analyzed the image and the image header checksum is wrong even though the header makes sense (was likely stolen). Also, it gets penalized for repetition, which occurs a lot in image headers.

        AFAIK, the smallest valid image you see mentioned on the web is a 35-byte transparent pixel GIF, and the smallest PNG is a black pixel with 67 bytes:

        
        
        

        Testing rendering: Alt text for the GIF; if you see it, it failed, Alt text for the PNG; if you see it, it failed, another 67-byte PNG but 8 px wide: , or 1 gray pixel: , or a green one:

        The article + the generator