The key isn't that they just "mix patterns". They learn to mix higher order abstractions, which is fundamentally different from "memorization".

Right, but you implied that these were of low quality. Can you explain why you think the brain Beetle is "not great"?

The example in another comment of the horse with an astronaut suit is in a similar spirit as the brain beetle, but was harder to get it to work. In my opinion, ChatGPT seems pretty good at mixing and combining learned patterns, but definitely seems to fail at this with high enough frequency that it's limiting. Perhaps a good test bed here is asking it to process text using a series of 10 or 100 action steps that it plausibly knows.

Right. But as I said in that thread, my very first and only attempt with ChatGPT created the desired image. Here it is again:

https://i.imgur.com/6CgVqeL.png

The nose pokes out past the glass of the helmet.

It's these basic mistakes that is so incongruous between human and machine intelligence. No matter how big the model, it always makes these same type of basic confabulations, just less often.

You're pointing out a single inconsistency and calling it a basic mistake, but are ignoring the thousands of advanced consistencies evident in the image, i.e., creativity that is beyond the ability of humans generally. Given this, the nose poking out is a trivial issue and isn't worth focusing on.

This is really just nitpicking, it's an incredible image that shows a huge amount of generalization.

As the others have said, your criticism is silly. If a human had done this piece, one would say they simply made an artistic choice to have the head extend beyond the bubble.

But just to nail this point home, here's what I get when I explicitly ask that the bubble cover the entire head:

https://i.imgur.com/oizqMbU.png

Now its tail is outside of the suit. Sure, it’s just dead hair, but there would be no way to seal the air in around where it exits the suit.

I’m as impressed as you are at the quality. Where I’m dubious is whether this confabulation problem can ever be made to completely go away.

Perhaps we need much larger models that can better understand the world.

I’ve always thought it weird that we use much smaller models for image generation than text generation!

As the others have said, your criticism is silly.

Granted, they said it silly, so it must be so.

Ok - here let me explain.

It's a ridiculous situation - a horse in outer space in a space suit. But you want the image to be hyper physically accurate. That's fine, but it's a little incongruous. I wouldn't expect a human artist to be able to guess your requirements, let alone an AI.

So no, I do not believe any amount of computer resources will let the AI guess your requirements. You'll have to spell them out, as I did with the bubble for you once already. If you want the tail to be enclosed as well, you'll have to spell it out.

The whole point of this discussion is to determine whether the AI is simply copy/pasting images it's seen before. We've determined that it does not - it is able to synthesis new images by understanding what it's seen.

Whether it can read your mind is a silly digression.

“Have the protective clothing actually cover the body” is something you think a human couldn’t figure out on their own?

Yes. I think an actual artist, if you simply requested "a horse in a space suit" would not think that you were worried about literally protecting a horse in space.

Because, as I have repeatedly tried to explain to you, the idea of a horse in space is ridiculous and tends toward ridiculous renditions.

I'm going to stop replying to you now. Have a nice day.

The mixing is the generalization