What is with these types of AI booster tweets? Nobody bothers to even check if it shows what they're implying it shows?
Or the vast majority of the hands are fine and everyone understands that it's a big upgrade except for some "well ackshully it's not perfect" HNers.
I had to zoom in and go hand to hand to find some outliers.
If they said "is much better at hands" it would be much clearer to me what happened and nobody would complain, that looks pretty ok for the most part, but saying "it can do hands" based on those pictures doesn't seem right.
Please don't complain that you don't understand the significance or the magnitude of a particular advance. Please don't complain that the phrasing of the tweet wasn't accessible -- your ping time to google.com is no different than mine. This is HN. Wear your intellectual Sunday best.
Midjourney could do hands before, just not consistently. That doesn't seem to have changed. So is it that MJ can now do more realistic hands inconsistently? Or did consistency get better without achieving reliability?
I can't make this not sound sarcastic, but I'm trying very hard to ask this earnestly: I never had trouble getting too many hands into a picture with v3 or v4. Is v5 getting the correct number of hands more frequently now? Is that it?
I expect either MJ 7 or 8 to do hands flawlessly, every time.
Now, take a look at these hands from MJ3: https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/wlujgw/midjourn...
It's important to note that MJ3 reliably did not produce human looking hands.
It's equally important to note that MJ5 usually does, at least from a quick count/survey of the hands shown in the provided image.
Is that sufficient? If not, what proofs would be sufficient?
That's gotta be the best comeback I've ever read on this site.
The hands aren't the problem. There, I said it. The hands were never a big deal, just the most visible symptom of the actual problem.
The problem is that AI art sucks and these people are too self-deluded to realize that because they want to believe that they have a shot at making that coveted internet money.
Otherwise, honestly, the tech behind AI art is actually pretty fascinating, it's just that the community is absolutely the worst.
Uh, no. I mean, what sucks and doesn't suck in art is subjective, but you're objectively wrong because, quite simply: A lot of people like AI art.
A colleague of mine is way into doing AI art and does pretty amazing stuff. eg:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/552952459958550548/10...
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/552952459958550548/10...
"It can't do hands"… well, don't f*king draw hands with it then. It's like complaining that my hammer doesn't make good pizza… you know what I do to solve that?
The gap between the world you want to inhabit and the one that is being born is widening.
I strongly disagree. NFTs were always ugly and useless. Generative AI is useful and valuable right this minute.
I'll even concede that the output from these systems is mostly ugly, but for many use cases, that's OK.
Given the choice between nothing, extremely cheap custom art that looks OK, and commissioning a proper artist to draw exactly what we want, I think generative AI is going to be the clear winner most of the time.
If you're a contract artist who does work for small companies and individuals, I don't see a future where generative AI doesn't severely undercut your business.
Twitter, insta, YouTube…
It’s not a great minds collection.
Diversity and inclusion.
It's Twitter. The only thing matters is tweeting, not some fact-checking nonsense.
We can leave those tedious tasks to GPT-4.