While cool, I am surprised this is considered noteworthy enough for an article. There’s so much experimentation constantly going on with these models, what makes this special? It’s more like the inspiration for a creepypasta.
I’m a pretty firm believer that Loab is a hoax “cryptid” due the unwillingness of the author to publish anything on the generation parameters. I think the author got one weird result from putting “Loab” in the negative prompt and then used img2img from there.
Anyone who shows images of a “cryptid” they discovered but refuses to show proofs is untrustworthy in my opinion.
Oh you mean Loab?
While cool, I am surprised this is considered noteworthy enough for an article. There’s so much experimentation constantly going on with these models, what makes this special? It’s more like the inspiration for a creepypasta.
I’m a pretty firm believer that Loab is a hoax “cryptid” due the unwillingness of the author to publish anything on the generation parameters. I think the author got one weird result from putting “Loab” in the negative prompt and then used img2img from there. Anyone who shows images of a “cryptid” they discovered but refuses to show proofs is untrustworthy in my opinion.
Hmm, seems like that’s everyone claiming to have found a cryptid.
Weird.
Well yeah, by definition. If they share proof, it ceases to be a cryptid and simply becomes a discovery.