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. 😜