@Perchance, looking at the TextToImage plugin page again today the wrongness of the line ‘the same seed generates the exact same picture’ is sort of jarring since nothing else on the page is false nor misleading (that i kno of).
for those of you who dont know, the same seed generates a variety of similar pictures.
How would you reword it? “The exact same seed and prompt and negative prompt produces highly-similar images.” Something like that?
“The same seed and prompt generated multiple times results in nearly identical images.” maybe
Yeah. Just the way you wrote your post it sounded like some heinous, egregious sin, that the write of that page is lying to us or something.
It’s not 100% accurate, but an understandable simplification–in most cases the differences are incredibly minor. They could edit it to be more accurate, fair enough. But it’s not as evil or outrageous as it seemed reading your post 😅
you are so right. im going to only have my documentation be true sometimes now.
Also ironically in my mind I hadn’t even considered it being an ‘on purpose misleading’ until adcom mentioned it. My initial thought was Perchance used to work like that or was initially intended to and later the dev put various filters in which caused seed now to not always be identical. I thought it some innocent thing.
I am surprised by this post at how acceptable false documentation is and that things that are actually wrong are valid to put in as documentation. You won’t ever see me doing that unless it is accidental; in which case I 100% appreciate being made aware of it.
Perchance doesn’t really have documentation, I wouldn’t even call it that 😅 By no means is there any exhaustive documentation on pretty much anything to do with Perchance. Not written by the dev anyway. It’s all very temp and WIP and partial and incomplete.
I’ve made my own documentation for it, to my own standards. But haven’t touched things like AI generation. I would just send people to the page of whatever model/tech I’m using and let them do their own research there, instead of trying to cover everything myself in a document.
I think this is just how Stable Diffusion works. There’s always some “noise” to the system, even using the same seed.
As I said, bringing it up is totally fine. And they should amend it to be more accurate. And looks like they have, from the comment they left here.
I didn’t say it’s “valid to put in as documentation.” Just that I know what happened. It happened because a) the dev is not a documentation writer, b) is making this platform up as they go along (I’m sure they’d agree), and that’s their passion, not writing about it, and c) they probably wrote it in a hurry so they could move on to something else that interested them more and it was good enough so they called it a day. Oh, and it’s not really to the level of “documentation” of the AI generator; I don’t think that was the intent necessarily.
This isn’t a professional outfit, know what I mean? 😅 So basically… these things happen. 🤷 Also… yes, helping them pick up on these issues is good; they just need our help to do that.
Don’t read my response as “there’s nothing wrong with what you pointed out.” But responding to the idea that it was written to be “false and misleading.” It wasn’t written to be false and misleading, it just turned out that way. 😅 Like a typo in a book wasn’t put there maliciously, it just wound up being there, and the process of editors and proofreaders it went through didn’t pick up on it before now. Nothing on perchance has been through editors and proofreaders even–so you’re going to see mistakes like this. That were not maliciously or purposefully false or misleading. They’re just simple mistakes.
On top of that, maybe that wasn’t what you intended to come across, but just the wording made it sound accusatory like that. So naturally, if that perceived accusation is not true, you’re going to see some defense against such an accusation. I think that’s all that’s going on here.
That’s what I was saying about “inaccurate.” That word doesn’t have any connotation of wrongdoing or malintent. “False” and “misleading” do, however. See what I mean? If not that’s fine. Just explaining how what you thought I was saying about acceptability of the problem isn’t accurate either. 😜
for me it was a peaceful post until adcom dismissed what i was saying and I had to confront him.
The thing on the page was false and lead me incorrectly because of it. You could say I was mis lead. Literally false. Literally mislead. Anything about an intention to mislead comes from yall other people saying it’s ok to make potentially false documentation to keep the noobs happy.
The Perchance Dev is actually someone with ideals. Not all Devs have ideals. I come from a coding place run by a guy tryin to hold wool over subscribers’ eyes so they pay their subscription. No speaking of competing things. No encouragement of going outside the program to learn. Total shady and not a single mention of ideals. I have ideals and they are a stronger pulling force than money. Lots of devs don’t visibly have ideals. Perchance dev does tho. This is probably why I am comfortable coding here. Not a single red flag that makes me think Perchance Dev looks at us predatorily; even with that the norm in society; and often speaking of ideals behind their choices and hinting at an inner moral compass.
Also hence me going thru an area using the documentation and getting pwned because it being false on a potentially useable aspect being out of place. It isn’t saying Perchance Dev is a misleading person; it’s the opposite. It’s because PerchanceDev is abnormally moral that a spot like that is out of place; which is why it was highly mentionable for fixing. I am sorry if the initial post did not convey that clearly enough.
Okay, I understand your intention. I would say that’s not how language and communication works. But I understand what you were trying to communicate so I’ll leave it at that.