Infinite Stable Diffusion Videos(orbdog.com)
orbdog.com
Infinite Stable Diffusion Videos
https://orbdog.com
45 comments
i find it interesting that you only took 9 commits to do it as well (+244 -62 LOC) https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/compare/main...l...
breaking it out for others curious:
- modified img2img to accept 2 prompts and 2 seeds (and a slerpradius and output video path)
- uses imutil.Video to create a video
- stochastic encode with noise, then decode, then add a frame to the video, for all n_iter
one thing i dont understand is why OP keeps calling `.half()` on their models. googled it and it seems to be a newish pytorch feature for "half precision" but couldnt get a clear answer on why you would want that. anyone care to share?
breaking it out for others curious:
- modified img2img to accept 2 prompts and 2 seeds (and a slerpradius and output video path)
- uses imutil.Video to create a video
- stochastic encode with noise, then decode, then add a frame to the video, for all n_iter
one thing i dont understand is why OP keeps calling `.half()` on their models. googled it and it seems to be a newish pytorch feature for "half precision" but couldnt get a clear answer on why you would want that. anyone care to share?
I believe using .half() lets you run Stable Diffusion on graphics cards with less vram
Half precision models reduce memory requirements without really impacting the final quality much.
Wow this looks nice. Lots of focus on details here in the thread but don't let that distract you.
From the code [1] I take it that you're using polar interpolation on two random points around the original noise right?
This is very cool stuff, thanks for sharing!
[1]: https://github.com/lwneal/duckrabbit/blob/cb375ec7c6067bf805...
From the code [1] I take it that you're using polar interpolation on two random points around the original noise right?
This is very cool stuff, thanks for sharing!
[1]: https://github.com/lwneal/duckrabbit/blob/cb375ec7c6067bf805...
Great work!
Could you explain more exactly which Droplet/configuration you are using on DigitalOcean?
Could you explain more exactly which Droplet/configuration you are using on DigitalOcean?
Bug report:
Sound permanently on after hitting next button once on Chromium 104.
Next button does move to next video, but also enables sound. Additionally, this breaks internal state, and the button still shows the muted symbol (despite the sound now being on). Hitting the muted sound button switches the sound button symbol to unmuted, sound still on as before. Hitting it again to mute the sound doesn't work, and doesn't change the symbol back to muted.
Sound permanently on after hitting next button once on Chromium 104.
Next button does move to next video, but also enables sound. Additionally, this breaks internal state, and the button still shows the muted symbol (despite the sound now being on). Hitting the muted sound button switches the sound button symbol to unmuted, sound still on as before. Hitting it again to mute the sound doesn't work, and doesn't change the symbol back to muted.
I know this is silly but I can't wait for games to have automatically generated "levels" that look like this. I guess 3d training and output is probably minimally researched at this point, and there is NERF research... at some point all of this research will truly show off its potential beyond pretty pictures.
This post https://twitter.com/madebyollin/status/1566838643771457536 is a step in such direction. I quite like the author's vision about neural nets eating through the graphics pipeline, given there are work like Gancraft (https://nvlabs.github.io/GANcraft/) and GTA photorealistic GAN (https://isl-org.github.io/PhotorealismEnhancement/) have produced stunning results.
My previous boss (in a engineering/construction company) has been working hard to get ahead of the procedural generation game.
If all engineering is, is altering CAD models to conform to local government regulations, then conceptually surely we can procedurally generate a whole fucking city, adding in sewers and power and other infrastructure as it goes.
The reality is much closer to how stable diffusion and other AI-generated art is now - technically and creatively impressive but often nonsensical and broken.
If all engineering is, is altering CAD models to conform to local government regulations, then conceptually surely we can procedurally generate a whole fucking city, adding in sewers and power and other infrastructure as it goes.
The reality is much closer to how stable diffusion and other AI-generated art is now - technically and creatively impressive but often nonsensical and broken.
Check out wave function collapse (this is a good article: https://www.procjam.com/tutorials/wfc/). It tends to be used for this type of procedural level generation.
And, as another commenter noted, also for cities design. There are actually a few versions of this: I worked on one called Delve https://www.sidewalklabs.com/products/delve
Typically they use constraints optimization or wave function collapse under the hood, on top of some sort of procedural generation pipeline. A few others are Spacemaker, Hypar, and Testfit.
And, as another commenter noted, also for cities design. There are actually a few versions of this: I worked on one called Delve https://www.sidewalklabs.com/products/delve
Typically they use constraints optimization or wave function collapse under the hood, on top of some sort of procedural generation pipeline. A few others are Spacemaker, Hypar, and Testfit.
This is neat. Some text that describes how this was made would be useful. Also the mute button doesn't work.
As an aside, it would be cool if music could also be an input to these kinds of generative models, such that the generated image somehow matches the feeling or mood of the music.
This looks almost silly now. But I'd bet that in a few years, we will see a full movie, created mostly with the equivalent of Stable Diffusion, win an Oscar.
My bet is that this will happen in 8-9 years from now, but it's just a guess.
I think it's hard to challenge the fact that it WILL happen, at some point in our lifetimes.
My bet is that this will happen in 8-9 years from now, but it's just a guess.
I think it's hard to challenge the fact that it WILL happen, at some point in our lifetimes.
well at least a side project AI site that didn’t crash immediately
How long before we have interactive full fidelity generated game / films ?
How do you know you aren't already experiencing one?
I find the term "not even wrong" to be unnecessarily patronizing, and I don't mean to invoke that connotation, but this is the sort of hypothesis it was meant to criticize. There is no amount of evidence which could disprove this hypothesis, but there's no good reason to believe it either (and I do find the statistical argument that's sometimes presented to be unconvincing as it's built upon a tower of arbitrary assumptions which are designed to reach the conclusion that we're living in a simulation). It's a technical veneer over solipsism. I don't find it a helpful thought experiment; I find it to be much more invigorating and useful to assume the world is real and worth engaging with wholeheartedly. And taking a sort of variation of Pascal's wager, I don't see what I lose by living that way if it does turn out that we're brains in jars.
If other people find this to be a helpful I'm interested to hear about it.
If other people find this to be a helpful I'm interested to hear about it.
> I find it to be much more invigorating and useful to assume the world is real and worth engaging with wholeheartedly.
I reject the dichotomy.
This universe is the one we have. Engaging with it wholeheartedly is the right way to go.
That doesn't mean it cannot be a simulated one. If it is a simulation, we might exploit that fact. Finding glitches can lead us to a deeper understanding of things around us. Gaining root on the machine our universe runs on is the ultimate sandbox escape. In my book that thought is invigorating and worth engaging with wholeheartedly.
I reject the dichotomy.
This universe is the one we have. Engaging with it wholeheartedly is the right way to go.
That doesn't mean it cannot be a simulated one. If it is a simulation, we might exploit that fact. Finding glitches can lead us to a deeper understanding of things around us. Gaining root on the machine our universe runs on is the ultimate sandbox escape. In my book that thought is invigorating and worth engaging with wholeheartedly.
I don't really understand what "glitch in reality" would mean. I think if we were literally in a software system, and encountered a literal bug, we would simply interpret it as a law of physics. We would only recognize it as a "glitch" if we had a specification to compare it to, but the observed behavior of the universe _is_ our specification. I don't understand what "gaining root" would mean either. Is what you're getting at doing experiments, learning how the world works, and exploiting these observations for our benefit or to apprehend something beautiful? Like science, engineering, and art? Is the value that it's a metaphor for these things updated for a modern life experience that might involve, say, exploring games for bugs that are useful for speedrunning or duplicating items?
If this is a useful framing for you, I'm here to understand, but I currently don't see it. To me this seems like solipsism and radical skepticism with a science fiction twist, and I personally find those ideas to inhibit my ability to understand and engage with the world.
If this is a useful framing for you, I'm here to understand, but I currently don't see it. To me this seems like solipsism and radical skepticism with a science fiction twist, and I personally find those ideas to inhibit my ability to understand and engage with the world.
> we would simply interpret it as a law of physics.
And that would be in some sense sensible and perfectly correct.
> We would only recognize it as a "glitch" if we had a specification to compare it to,
Nah. I disagree. If you are playing a game and you fall through a wall you can call that a glitch without seeing the game's specification. It is because that experience is not in line with the rest of the system.
Imagine if we find that a specific reaction between high-energy particles goes measurably differently in one bounded patch of the universe. We find this randomly. Then an army of physicist descends on it. They measure a lot. Perform experiments. They characterise the effect to a high degree. Map out the precise boundaries. Map out what exactly happens on the boundary, and so on and so on. ... Is this just physics? Yes! Would this effect feel like a "glitch"? Also yes!
> I don't understand what "gaining root" would mean either.
Transcending the laws of our Universe. Being able to change them. Rewriting the very fabric of reality. Becoming god or gods. Peaking behind the curtain and finding a brand new playground beyond it. Being able to change PI to be actually 42.
> To me this seems like solipsism
I think you are hang up on some specific flavour of how the universe could be a simulation. Maybe try to think of other possible ways?
And that would be in some sense sensible and perfectly correct.
> We would only recognize it as a "glitch" if we had a specification to compare it to,
Nah. I disagree. If you are playing a game and you fall through a wall you can call that a glitch without seeing the game's specification. It is because that experience is not in line with the rest of the system.
Imagine if we find that a specific reaction between high-energy particles goes measurably differently in one bounded patch of the universe. We find this randomly. Then an army of physicist descends on it. They measure a lot. Perform experiments. They characterise the effect to a high degree. Map out the precise boundaries. Map out what exactly happens on the boundary, and so on and so on. ... Is this just physics? Yes! Would this effect feel like a "glitch"? Also yes!
> I don't understand what "gaining root" would mean either.
Transcending the laws of our Universe. Being able to change them. Rewriting the very fabric of reality. Becoming god or gods. Peaking behind the curtain and finding a brand new playground beyond it. Being able to change PI to be actually 42.
> To me this seems like solipsism
I think you are hang up on some specific flavour of how the universe could be a simulation. Maybe try to think of other possible ways?
You're able to identify that as a bug in a video game because you know that it's supposed to be a reflection of reality and that you don't fall through the floor in reality. That is what I mean by having a specification. We regularly encounter things in the universe that don't match the expectations we've developed - and we update those expectations instead of assuming that the universe is at fault.
Your suggestion that this may lead to us "being gods" certainly does not change my view that this is solipsistic and that the conclusions it leads one to are silly at best and dangerous at worst. The idea that you can become God doesn't seem compatible with a healthy life where you accept your limitations and find a way to live vibrantly despite them. It sounds like something a supervillain says at the beginning of a Marvel movie.
Your suggestion that this may lead to us "being gods" certainly does not change my view that this is solipsistic and that the conclusions it leads one to are silly at best and dangerous at worst. The idea that you can become God doesn't seem compatible with a healthy life where you accept your limitations and find a way to live vibrantly despite them. It sounds like something a supervillain says at the beginning of a Marvel movie.
> doesn't seem compatible with a healthy life
Hey fellow human being. You are being incredibly insulting here. I can assure you that I have both a wholesome and healthy life and believe that maybe we live in a simulation. If the two things seems incompatible to you that is a limitation of your cognition.
Can we discuss ideas without insinuating that the other is living an unhealthy or less vibrant life? Thank you very much.
You talk about this idea being “solipsistic”. I had to look up the word. Merriam-Webster defines solipsism as “a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing”.
I think you are still only thinking about “brains in a jar”. The idea where a brain or brains is attached to some machine which feeds them with simulated sensory input.
That idea is indeed solipsistic. By the very definition. It is also not particularly interesting to be frank and not the kind of “simulated universe” I am thinking about.
The kind I find more interesting is where the laws of physics are executed on a high fidelity simulation. The difference here is that here the brains are not hooked up to the machine, but part of the simulation. An emergent phenomenon inside it. Same way as that flower there, or a neutron star yonder.
This is fully compatible with living a wholesome life. You play board games with your friends, make hot love and cold gazpacho. Walk barefoot under moonless skies on lush meadows etc etc. It just might be a simulated person in a simulated universe, there is nothing wrong with that. Doesn’t make it any less vibrant or feel the grass any less cold.
You might also ask what does it matter if physics is simulated, how would we even know? If the simulation is “perfect” then we might never know. So far we found that the laws of physics are the same no matter where we look. If we would find certain kind of anomalies those could indicate certain kind of simulation systems.
Let me tell you an example: Imagine that you are designing a simulation to run a universe. You have a mindbogingly lot of compute at your disposal but not infinite amount. You might want to shard your simulation to clusters you can compute in paralel, and you want to minimise the information transfer between these clusters. Having gravity (which clumps stuff together) and speed of light (which keeps speeds bounded) helps with this. This is so far not predictive. I just wrote up a bunch of speculations. To make it interesting you need something we can test. Here comes the prediction: if I were coding a universe simulation distributed this way I would hate the boundary interactions between clusters. Would probably be super hard to make it seamless with the rest of the simulation. Therefore if we live in such a simulation I would expect anomalies in the finer details of the laws of physics at the boundaries of clusters. Lets asume that the clusters are rougly aligned with star systems. We could send a probe to the nearest one which keeps making detailed measurements on-board while it travels. If it encounters a boundary where physics “skips a beat” then we might see that in the measurements. We know it can’t be some huge stuff. We see the light of other stars, we observe matter which traveled interstellar distances. But maybe it would be enough to disrupt the internal oscillation of an atomic clock as it is crossing a cluster boundary.
It is important to understand that I am not saying that we for sure live in a clustered simulation of a universe. What I am illustrating here is that this kind of thinking can lead to theories about how the universe might be, and those theories can lead to testable experiments. There are people much smarter than me, and they will think of thousand times more intersting ones. I am sure about that. Do you still feel this solipsistic?
Hey fellow human being. You are being incredibly insulting here. I can assure you that I have both a wholesome and healthy life and believe that maybe we live in a simulation. If the two things seems incompatible to you that is a limitation of your cognition.
Can we discuss ideas without insinuating that the other is living an unhealthy or less vibrant life? Thank you very much.
You talk about this idea being “solipsistic”. I had to look up the word. Merriam-Webster defines solipsism as “a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing”.
I think you are still only thinking about “brains in a jar”. The idea where a brain or brains is attached to some machine which feeds them with simulated sensory input.
That idea is indeed solipsistic. By the very definition. It is also not particularly interesting to be frank and not the kind of “simulated universe” I am thinking about.
The kind I find more interesting is where the laws of physics are executed on a high fidelity simulation. The difference here is that here the brains are not hooked up to the machine, but part of the simulation. An emergent phenomenon inside it. Same way as that flower there, or a neutron star yonder.
This is fully compatible with living a wholesome life. You play board games with your friends, make hot love and cold gazpacho. Walk barefoot under moonless skies on lush meadows etc etc. It just might be a simulated person in a simulated universe, there is nothing wrong with that. Doesn’t make it any less vibrant or feel the grass any less cold.
You might also ask what does it matter if physics is simulated, how would we even know? If the simulation is “perfect” then we might never know. So far we found that the laws of physics are the same no matter where we look. If we would find certain kind of anomalies those could indicate certain kind of simulation systems.
Let me tell you an example: Imagine that you are designing a simulation to run a universe. You have a mindbogingly lot of compute at your disposal but not infinite amount. You might want to shard your simulation to clusters you can compute in paralel, and you want to minimise the information transfer between these clusters. Having gravity (which clumps stuff together) and speed of light (which keeps speeds bounded) helps with this. This is so far not predictive. I just wrote up a bunch of speculations. To make it interesting you need something we can test. Here comes the prediction: if I were coding a universe simulation distributed this way I would hate the boundary interactions between clusters. Would probably be super hard to make it seamless with the rest of the simulation. Therefore if we live in such a simulation I would expect anomalies in the finer details of the laws of physics at the boundaries of clusters. Lets asume that the clusters are rougly aligned with star systems. We could send a probe to the nearest one which keeps making detailed measurements on-board while it travels. If it encounters a boundary where physics “skips a beat” then we might see that in the measurements. We know it can’t be some huge stuff. We see the light of other stars, we observe matter which traveled interstellar distances. But maybe it would be enough to disrupt the internal oscillation of an atomic clock as it is crossing a cluster boundary.
It is important to understand that I am not saying that we for sure live in a clustered simulation of a universe. What I am illustrating here is that this kind of thinking can lead to theories about how the universe might be, and those theories can lead to testable experiments. There are people much smarter than me, and they will think of thousand times more intersting ones. I am sure about that. Do you still feel this solipsistic?
I apologize that I came off as insulting and judgemental, I should have expressed myself better. It genuinely is not personal for me, and my criticism is for the idea and not for you. Please note that I said, "the idea seems..." and not "you seem..."; I can understand how you would take that implication, and take responsibility for expressing myself badly, but I just want to demonstrate this wasn't my intention.
I find the idea you expressed - specifically that godhood might be attainable and that it's a goal one could work toward - to be extreme and dangerous, and I have first- and second-hand experiences where I've observed similar ideas to be harmful. (It would be fair to ask that I share these experiences, but I am not comfortable doing so; I realize that's unfair to you because it denies you the opportunity to interrogate them, and I apologize for that, but they are personal and painful and not all of them are mine to share.) I have no judgement of you, but I have a distaste for this idea. The rest of the ideas you're expressing, about life being just as fulfilling in a simulation, seem to be an ecstatic and joyful response to nihilism, and if that is working for you, that's awesome. But surely you can imagine a circumstance in which the idea "godhood is attainable" causes harm.
I think you're thinking that I just haven't thought this through properly and that if you just explained it better I would agree with you. But I have given this a lot of thought. I first encountered these ideas about 15 years ago, and your elaboration isn't really presenting anything new to me. We agree on what this thought experiment means and what the implications would be, we just interpret the results of the experiment quite differently. I do find it to be solipsistic, with some small concessions, like "okay, I admit that other minds exist as much as my mind does, so instead I hold that all of us are fictions." The idea that reality might be so malleable that we can "hack" it is, in my mind, inherently solipsistic, a natural consequence of centering one's ability to manipulate the universe as the most real thing.
I find the idea you expressed - specifically that godhood might be attainable and that it's a goal one could work toward - to be extreme and dangerous, and I have first- and second-hand experiences where I've observed similar ideas to be harmful. (It would be fair to ask that I share these experiences, but I am not comfortable doing so; I realize that's unfair to you because it denies you the opportunity to interrogate them, and I apologize for that, but they are personal and painful and not all of them are mine to share.) I have no judgement of you, but I have a distaste for this idea. The rest of the ideas you're expressing, about life being just as fulfilling in a simulation, seem to be an ecstatic and joyful response to nihilism, and if that is working for you, that's awesome. But surely you can imagine a circumstance in which the idea "godhood is attainable" causes harm.
I think you're thinking that I just haven't thought this through properly and that if you just explained it better I would agree with you. But I have given this a lot of thought. I first encountered these ideas about 15 years ago, and your elaboration isn't really presenting anything new to me. We agree on what this thought experiment means and what the implications would be, we just interpret the results of the experiment quite differently. I do find it to be solipsistic, with some small concessions, like "okay, I admit that other minds exist as much as my mind does, so instead I hold that all of us are fictions." The idea that reality might be so malleable that we can "hack" it is, in my mind, inherently solipsistic, a natural consequence of centering one's ability to manipulate the universe as the most real thing.
You start with "Not even wrong" but end with: Might as well assume its false because the alternative is pointless. Which are basically opposite views.
Either you think the idea is too flawed to consider, or you can consider it and conclude we might as well assume the world is real, because if it wasn't what would we even do, but i don't understand how you can hold both positions.
Either you think the idea is too flawed to consider, or you can consider it and conclude we might as well assume the world is real, because if it wasn't what would we even do, but i don't understand how you can hold both positions.
When I disclaimed the patronizing nature of "not even wrong," making a value judgement on whether it is worth consideration was one of the things I wanted to avoid. I'm not really interested in telling someone what they shouldn't consider, and whether or not it is worth it I've spent some time thinking about it over the years. I do think that this question isn't really able to produce useful insights, and I wanted to state my view on that, but I don't want to apply a moral judgement on the act of considering the question. I probably would've been better off steering clear of that term.
What I mean to suggest is that, though this is often presented as a scientific hypothesis about reality (eg, sometimes people say things like, "there's a 20% chance the universe is a simulation"), it is unfalsifiable, and therefor not a scientific hypothesis. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be approached with other ways of knowing, and the argument I present is essentially a spiritual one.
What I mean to suggest is that, though this is often presented as a scientific hypothesis about reality (eg, sometimes people say things like, "there's a 20% chance the universe is a simulation"), it is unfalsifiable, and therefor not a scientific hypothesis. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be approached with other ways of knowing, and the argument I present is essentially a spiritual one.
[deleted]
what if there was a way to “increase frame rate” by adding in some type of logic checker between two generated images? kinda like a comparison between two generated frames that would lead to more generated images that mimic movement? so like a filler between frames that would predict how something got to one shape to another using a set of properties that a generated object has, those properties could be weight, speed, gravity etc etc, it just depends on what object it is conceptualizing or constructing
How does this work?
Not so “stable” then /jk
But please change the music!
But please change the music!
Cool idea! How do you get the prompts from lexica? I can not find that in the repository.
[deleted]
I've been following r/StableDiffusion on reddit for a while and was wondering whether this can also be used for anything that doesn't look like a cheap fantasy or science fiction novel cover.
This is an honest question, I haven't seen any example of anything else so I got to wonder whether the models they are using are specialized for sci-fi and fantasy "air brush/digital" style? Why?
This is an honest question, I haven't seen any example of anything else so I got to wonder whether the models they are using are specialized for sci-fi and fantasy "air brush/digital" style? Why?
Of course it can. It's extremely new, and people are already creating fantastic results since it has been released literally just over two weeks ago.
The models, processes, and collective knowledge will just develop more over time to create MUCH better visuals, videos, and temporally coherent animations.
This is like a new form of art canvas, and we're all getting used to the basics of using the "paints" and "brushes" for it. In a few months/years, some of us will master the skill and produce fantastic artpieces.
The models, processes, and collective knowledge will just develop more over time to create MUCH better visuals, videos, and temporally coherent animations.
This is like a new form of art canvas, and we're all getting used to the basics of using the "paints" and "brushes" for it. In a few months/years, some of us will master the skill and produce fantastic artpieces.
Sure, it will only get better not worse.
But for know, the stunning stuff tends to be fantasy, sci-fi, impressionistic. Photos of people that are not a portrait are pretty often anatomically impossible. Getting hands, arms and stuff right seems quite difficult for these networks.
Funny enough, I've seen underwater pictures that to me looked quite believable, but to they expert are ridiculous. Lot's of impossible stuff going on. Human brains are ready to fill in a lot of detail.
But for know, the stunning stuff tends to be fantasy, sci-fi, impressionistic. Photos of people that are not a portrait are pretty often anatomically impossible. Getting hands, arms and stuff right seems quite difficult for these networks.
Funny enough, I've seen underwater pictures that to me looked quite believable, but to they expert are ridiculous. Lot's of impossible stuff going on. Human brains are ready to fill in a lot of detail.
Interesting. The results so far look pretty good, though only for fantasy and science fiction "fan art" style. That's why I was wondering whether the models are only trained from such inputs. If I understand you correctly, this is not the case and other styles of art can also be produced. Right?
Another question: Do the people who run the software claim copyright on the results even though these are (mostly) produced by the software? It sounds like that when you write "some us will [...] produce fantastic artpieces." I guess it's also legally the case but wonder whether that's also how people experimenting with it understand it.
Another question: Do the people who run the software claim copyright on the results even though these are (mostly) produced by the software? It sounds like that when you write "some us will [...] produce fantastic artpieces." I guess it's also legally the case but wonder whether that's also how people experimenting with it understand it.
As it takes a lot of iterations, curation and knowledge about how to best steer the systems, most users (rightfully) feel some sort of creativity and skill went into the works even if the AI did the pixels, except if you're really lucky and you get something amazing out of a simple prompt.. In the end, it's each to his own I guess. This will just be another tool in the toolbox of a digital creator.
Btw it simply isn't true that the AI generators are "only good for fantasy and sci-fi". I guess you've been seeing a biased selection. They can do pretty much anything. MidJourney is for sure more fine-tuned towards artsy stuff though.
Btw it simply isn't true that the AI generators are "only good for fantasy and sci-fi". I guess you've been seeing a biased selection. They can do pretty much anything. MidJourney is for sure more fine-tuned towards artsy stuff though.
Fantasy novel covers are exceedingly easy to do because of the mountain of examples in the training data. Basically: any kind of art that we have lots of examples of are very easy to make with these tools.
My fun has been with two games: 1) making unusual art from prose using the art styles of famous painters, 2) playing "AI Pictionary" with friends (can you produce image X; example: a person eating ramen with chopsticks that are light sabers).
My fun has been with two games: 1) making unusual art from prose using the art styles of famous painters, 2) playing "AI Pictionary" with friends (can you produce image X; example: a person eating ramen with chopsticks that are light sabers).
> Fantasy novel covers are exceedingly easy to do because of the mountain of examples in the training data
It's also because they are basically nonsense (fantasy) so the results in the style look more plausible.
I tried using a few AI generators to get some basic placeholder images for products and it's utterly shit, it's clear that networks dont understand what they are generating. Like I tried to generate bycicles and I would get components sticking to ground, floating components, stupid proportions, visual artifacts.
It's also because they are basically nonsense (fantasy) so the results in the style look more plausible.
I tried using a few AI generators to get some basic placeholder images for products and it's utterly shit, it's clear that networks dont understand what they are generating. Like I tried to generate bycicles and I would get components sticking to ground, floating components, stupid proportions, visual artifacts.
The videos are generated from random https://lexica.art prompts, with linear interpolation between two random seeds for each video, held at the same prompt, looped with ffmpeg filter_complex reverse/concat. Music from various creative commons / free sources.
Source code at https://github.com/lwneal/duckrabbit/
Hosted on a single $7 node at https://www.digitalocean.com