I don’t know much about the glitch service or how it works with perchance generators. But what are you trying to do with it? Are you using instructions someone has written or something?
Cool…? I guess you should add a link to this post so people can just go look at it, instead of just look at an image ;p Also, “screenshot-plugin” seems to not actually exist so the instructions in the image will not work.
Have you renamed it to “simple-screenshot-plugin” perhaps? https://perchance.org/simple-screenshot-plugin
Could I make some suggestions for changes to how this works? I could make my own, but since you’ve put the effort into making this in the first place I don’t want to derail that if I can help it.
Allow passing a full query selector / element reference to the function.
Have functions to call to just render the canvas and get that canvas. Another to render and get a data url. Another to render and download.
And possibly one to download a data url image, and another to download a canvas image.
Doesn’t need any more coding really, just moving some code around. And makes what you could use the plugin for waaaaay more versatile.
Well are you using a VPN? That’s the first thing to check right?
Perchance needs the perchance servers to run the AI stuff. You cannot use a local copy of a generator to use the servers. You cannot direct the downloaded generator to use a local install of an AI.
I guess you’d have to create your own interface for your own local AI installation–if that’s even a thing.
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.
Wow, what was the final prompt given to the generator for those 3? And seed and other settings?
Teamwork! ;p
I’ve never seen it myself, and I’ve experimented a lot with locked-in seeds and such too.
So is this something you’ve generated, or is that in the gallery? Either way, seems like it’s displaying incorrectly of course. I don’t see why there would be something you should do about it, if there’s some bug in the system causing this.
Other than maybe bring it to the attention of @perchance@lemmy.world–which you’ve now done ;P
“These”? “Do”? Could you explain what you’re talking about more please?
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
If you added it to a gallery, then likely the title has the style listed in it on the gallery.