Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
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.