wthit56

"These"? "Do"? Could you explain what you're talking about more please?

No restrictions. https://lemmy.world/comment/1769904

You cannot run the perchance AI locally, because it's all on the server. You can download perchance generators but the AI aspects of those generators will not work when run locally.

So you'd need to make your own thing to interface with whatever AI generators you've got on your machine, yourself.

Use a different emotion in the prompt I guess?

Something to remember though is that all words affect the generated image. So unless you've actually locked in how the character looks with other words in the prompt, using a different emotion word may change some aspect of how the character looks as well.

You could also use the BREAK keyword, which cuts the string of meaning. So then you can have one word relating to one part of the prompt but not other parts of the prompt. The classic example is blue dress yellow hat can produce various elements in the image being blue or yellow... vs blue dress BREAK yellow hat which would make only the dress blue, and only the hat yellow. (In theory.)

I don't know, seems to work okay for me. Could you give me a link to what you're working on so I can see it not working?

Normally this is kinda redundant: quality = [qua = rarityTier]. You could just do qua = [rarityTier] instead.

Know that setting it to rarityTier will just reference that list object, not a selected item from that object. If you wanted to select a random item and find the odds of that, you'd want to use rarityTier.selectOne instead.

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. 😜

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 😅

How would you reword it? "The exact same seed and prompt and negative prompt produces highly-similar images." Something like that?

I made one not long ago actually... https://perchance.org/perchance-reference

@[email protected]

@[email protected]

You should use the dev tools in your browser to figure this out. In the sources tab of dev tools, turn on "break on caught error" and see if you can get to the line that looks like that one it printed out in that message. That'll help you figure out what code is breaking.

Presumably it's in the dynamic importer plugin, so you could just look in that plugin's code on the site, and see where that is, and find out what's gone wrong that way.