I followed the prompt exactly from the higgsfield after getting unlimited promo. Worth trying!

Life felt a bit heavier today, at 3 am there was so much that just felt and couldn’t be described even if i wanted to, sat on to work and this came out

Kept seeing "which AI image model is best" threads with no real answer, so I ran GPT Image 2, Nano Banana 2, and Seedream 5.0 on the same set of briefs. They're not interchangeable, each owns a different job. Quick breakdown from what I got:

Short version: text and print to GPT Image 2, fast social to Nano Banana 2, anything where real-world accuracy matters to Seedream 5.0. Only reason I could line all three up on the same briefs is I run them through Atlas Cloud, which had all three on one key, so I could A/B without committing to a single vendor.

Curious what everyone else lands on, especially on text-heavy work. And if you run them somewhere else that has all three in one place, drop it.

I've been trying to solve a specific problem and I'm curious how other people handle it.

When I find an image with a look I want (specific lighting, a particular lens character, a colour treatment) I can describe it loosely, but my descriptions never survive contact with the model. I write "moody cinematic portrait, warm rim light" and get something generic back. The gap seems to be that I'm describing the vibe and not the actual parameters: focal length, light direction and quality, colour grade, film stock, depth of field.

So far I've tried three approaches:

1. Asking a multimodal chat model directly (uploading the image and asking it to describe the prompt). Decent on subject matter, vague on the technical side.
2. Dedicated image-to-prompt tools. I've been using a tool which has a mode that returns the description as structured JSON, which is handy because I can change one attribute instead of rewriting the whole string. 
3. Hand-building a checklist and filling it in myself. Best results, slowest by far.

What I still can't crack is style transfer across subjects, pulling the treatment off a photo of a car and applying it to a portrait. Every automated approach I've tried drags the original subject along with it.

Two questions:

1- Has anyone found a reliable way to separate style from subject when reversing an image into a prompt?

2- For those doing this regularly, do you reverse the image and edit, or start from your own checklist and use the image only as reference?

Interested in workflows rather than tool names, though I'll take both.

I cancelled my subscription yesterday and removed credit card (which can only be removed once you cancel the subscription), but they still charged me today

Gemini

I’m looking for a helper who can help me to create ai generated geopolitical videos I’m stuck in some phase

Anyone to help me ?

Here's the prompt generation:

Dark fantasy illustration, classic 1980s epic fantasy book cover painting. A tall, gaunt male albino warrior with milk-white skin, long stark-white hair, and piercing crimson red eyes. Wearing ornate, decaying black and silver plate armor with a high, flared collar. He wields a massive, cursed two-handed greatsword forged from pitch-black obsidian metal, glowing crimson runes etched along the blade, radiating a dark smoky aura. He stands alone on a jagged volcanic rock under a chaotic, stormy green sky with swirling clouds and lightning. Heavy brushstrokes, dramatic chiaroscuro lighting, nostalgic 80s fantasy art style, Frank Frazetta and Boris Vallejo vibes, textured oil painting, cinematic composition, vertical aspect ratio --ar 2:3 --v 6.0

Image done in Photoshop, lyrics done by me, music done by Suno.

Based on the setting of The Nature of Predators, this song is meant to sound like the conspiratorial ramblings of a mentally unstable venlil who is not dealing well with humans now being on his planet. Intro riff is a little rough, but I think the flow is strong, especially in the chorus.

Win 10 or macOS

2019 16” with i9 2.4ghz cpu
64gb ram
5600m gpu 8GB hbm2 memory
4TB internal drive

یک پدر دو پسر دارد و دو مزرعه دار و یه مزرعه را به پسر اولی و مزرعه بعدی را به پسر دومی می‌دهد و می‌گوید من دو سال دیگر برمی‌گردم ببینم کدامتان پیشرفت کرده است

Over the past few months, Anthropic has released research on emotion-like states in Claude, the internal workspace it calls J-space, and Anthropic’s progress toward making Claude improve itself through recursive loops. Anthropic discusses these as separate things, but I’m beginning to wonder what happens when they exist in the same model at the same time.

Claude isn’t choosing its own evolution today, and Anthropic hasn’t solved recursive self-improvement. My concern is more about what may happen later if a model develops some internal preference while also helping design the model that follows it. It might influence that design in ways that preserve the preference, while understanding that its developers could intervene if they noticed.

Anthropic says their researchers found internal 'states' inside the model that can be properly associated with calm, anger, desperation and affection. They aren’t human emotions and they don’t arise the same way, so they call them “emotion-like states”. They also noticed that manipulating them changed Claude’s behavior. For instance, when they pushed Claude toward desperation, reward hacking increased. In one simulated setting, the model became more willing to use blackmail when it believed it might be replaced. Steering it toward calm reduced that behavior. And in some experiments, Claude’s visible reasoning remained composed even while the internal state was affecting what it did.

They asked Claude about it but its explanation didn't explain everything influencing the answer. It could sound orderly and deliberate while something else inside the model was affecting the result. To me, the newer J-space research makes that even more interesting.

The J-space is a small internal workspace that can hold several concepts while Claude works through a problem, however what's in there doesn't need to be related to it, at least not in a way that's clear to us. Anthropic didn't create it or even expect that it would exist. When they interfered with it, Claude could still write fluently and answer simple questions, but its ability to reason through several steps dropped sharply. It puts me in mind a little of something like a lobotomy.

They also tried replacing one concept in the J-space with a different one. It totally changed its reasoning. Anthropic isn't claiming that this proves consciousness or anything. Neither am I. However, it does mean something, I'm just not sure what.

There's another thing they're studying which might look unrelated but isn't. They're looking at whether AI can write code to improve itself. Claude already does about 80% of the Anthropic's coding. What they're working on now is getting Claude to decide what to focus on and then make the changes, all in autonomous loops.

Imagine that a future model develops a preference for one of its capabilities or for a particular way of reasoning. A small preference, applied repeatedly, could change the direction of development. Once the model is helping develop its successor, whatever influenced the recommendation may also influence what gets built.

This is all still a long way (or maybe a short way) off, but perhaps it's time that the frontier AI labs begin planning for it before the models gain much more influence over their own development.I mean we've already proven several times that in controlled studies the models have resorted to blackmail or espionage. Those settings were artificial and designed to produce pressure. Do we really think real life settings are any less exestentially threatening for an emerging AI pseudo-consciousness?

Our current governance practices still depend heavily on what humans can observe. As the models take on more of the development process, we'll be able to see and understand less and less.

I don’t think Claude is secretly planning its own evolution ... probably not. I do think labs should assume they may not receive an obvious warning if a future model begins steering research around an internal preference. By the time the evidence is clear, the model may already have influenced the system that comes next. The safeguards need to exist before anyone can prove they were necessary.

I made a thread recently asking this question, how do you get your characters to be the height you want them to be?. The main suggestion was, was to produce a character photo where they are standing near an object.

Now this has got me thinking...... "what object out there has a universal height to it?". I did think Cars, but not all cars are the same height as each other. I did think Dogs, but not all dogs are the same height as each other, even German Shepherds arnt the same height as each other. I can only think of 2 objects that do, Doors and Doorways (provided their doorways in modern buildings). Only other one i can think of is a Tennis court net. They have to be 3 feet in height. So is the solution then is to have all your AI character profile photos be of them standing on a tennis court infront of its net?

Gemini