A lot of people seem to think that chatgpt is like dedicated image generators now that it can make and edit images right in the chat. I did some structured comparisons for a project I’m working on, and the results were pretty clear. Chatgpt wins in two areas: editing and accessibility. It’s already where people are, you don’t have to set anything up, and the conversational editing flow is really good. It makes more sense to just say “make the background darker” or “add a person on the left” and have it happen than to use any tool’s interface. It can’t be beat for coming up with ideas and making quick changes during a conversation. But dedicated tools are better at almost everything else. For photorealism, models like Mystic 2.5 and Google Imagen 4 make pictures that are in a whole other league. The skin textures, lighting, and small details make chatgpt’s images look very fake in comparison. Text rendering is another big problem. ChatGPT is only about 55% accurate on anything with five or more words, while Ideogram is about 90% accurate. And for volume, chatgpt makes one image at a time in a conversation, while dedicated platforms let you run batches across many models and see the results side by side. For professional use, the gap is most important in terms of speed and volume. Chatgpt only makes one image at a time, but sites like freepik that collect many models let you make images across many models at once and compare the results. The dedicated method is much faster for production work that requires twenty different versions of an idea. Chatgpt is good enough for brainstorming, making prototypes, and using it for personal reasons. Dedicated AI creative tools are still better for professional content creation where quality, speed, and model choice are important. submitted by /u/No_Date9719
Originally posted by u/No_Date9719 on r/ArtificialInteligence