ReginaldIII t1_iy5motj wrote
Reply to comment by sam__izdat in [P] Stable Diffusion 2.0 and the Importance of Negative Prompts for Good Results (+ Colab Notebooks + Negative Embedding) by minimaxir
What metric are you using to say this is an improved prompt? I think it's fair to say it is somewhat comparable but I think you'd need a set of metrics to define an improvement.
A proportion of N images produced where the hands were correct. Or a comparative user study where participants see the image pairs side by side randomly swapped and choose which they prefer.
And it definitely needs a comparison to a baseline of no negative prompt.
It will also be interesting to see if this still applies to SD 2 since it uses a different language model.
sam__izdat t1_iy5ms2r wrote
> What metric are you using to say this is an improved prompt.
It isn't an improved prompt. It was just a silly joke and a spoof on a research paper. Like you say, I think they are comparable -- that is, equally useless for correcting terrible hands. At least on the base model. I don't know how the anime ones are trained, so maybe that's different if someone actually went and captioned anatomical errors.
ReginaldIII t1_iy5nmcv wrote
I hate that I'm going to be "that guy" but it's not obvious enough that it's just a joke because it does actually produce reasonably similar results. "Improved" is, at least from this, somewhat plausible so I would be careful saying it because you don't actually mean it seriously but that isn't clear.
You'd have been dunking on them just as well if you'd said a bullshit random prompt performs comparatively.
sam__izdat t1_iy5nsm3 wrote
It wasn't my intention to deceive anyone. I thought it was pretty clear that this is humor and not serious research.
JanssonsFrestelse t1_iy73zgf wrote
Should have used the negative prompt "a bullshit random prompt that performs comparatively"
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments