automatoney

Wow what a touching compliment, thank you so much!!

Woah I LOVE both of these! When I get a chance these are 100% getting linked from the writeup.

There's a lot of really good research papers that touch on this area from what I saw - would definitely be cool to see if that extra nuance could be added without dramatically increasing the math complexity; in its current state, the code could be used in any programming language without a library.

Yes, 2.0 is the value I tuned the equations around - but I think there's definitely room for improvement in terms of squashing the space along the fair/deep axis in order to get better results at lower R^2.

The issue I ran into was what happens when the space moves beyond RGB, but I think the fix is to just add clamps to the end R, G, B values.

Good catch, added MIT license - feel free to use it! On top of that, my understanding is that math/equations are not subject to copyright, so the core part of this work (the equations/ideas) I think legally has 0 limitations - even if there were a restrictive license. But IANAL so might have some misconceptions.

Oh wow, didn't even think of how that sort of thing might affect the page.

Thanks! I hope to send lots of love those ways, they're basically all things that I found outside of this work that I liked enough to remember (I think Humanae was the one that I found while doing this).

Thank you! I call out the manual labeling bias and also that a future work improvement would be to be scientific about that labeling process (multiple labelers, expert labelers), and then to feed that into the equation generation steps. Part of where the "good enough" naming comes from - I was hoping that using my art brain and keeping a bunch of reference images in mind (shout out to the Humanae project) would maybe offset the bias a bit. But 100% right on the bias being there.

Yes absolutely right on - I mention much deeper in the page that in a picker UI you can use a bigger range, but that in a generation context you might want to be a bit more selective. I go into it a bit more when I explain what R^2 is.

"not sure if there's a way to solve that problem without excluding some real colors too" - 100% right on that too. A big part of this work was to define a way to tweak/improve the equations in order to approach a solution to these issues - part of my hope in sharing is to get more eyes and brains thinking about this and proposing improvements!

In sharing this around I've found more people than I thought who've done things to semantically chop up the color space - definitely a more interesting area than I first thought of when working on my narrow use case. Feels like it'd be fun to play with something that has a whole bunch of different regions of color space labeled - like "here's where IsPastel overlaps with IsGreen".

But absolutely the hope is that this is a tool that stays accessible to people for whatever they're building and everyone can slow down on reinventing the wheel here for every character creator/digital art application.

I feel similarly to the author, and I appreciate the links to other authors with similar sentiments - "hirirng a taskrabbit to solve a puzzle" or "feeling nothing about the results". I don't enjoy using LLMs, and I'm sad that it feels like we are a shrinking minority of programmers. It feels like a growing gulf that I increasingly don't want to try and reach across - I do not have fun with this tool, and I don't really want to hang around somewhere people are frequently pedaling it.

At the very least the change has made me reduce the amount of time I spend here. But I'm still a bit bummed about it.

There's some genuinely interesting tips in here, but #10 is for sure just padding so they could call the article "10 Hacks" haha. Everything else is at least somewhat Python specific, but "Hack 10: Avoid repeated function calls in loops" is just applicable to anything.

I've never understood why people care so much about the linter settings. It's so obviously bikeshedding, just make a choice, run the linter automatically and be done with it. I'm too busy doing actual software engineering to care about where exactly everything goes - I promise after a week you'll just get used to whatever format your team lands on.

The writing feels odd in a sort of off putting way. Maybe too much vividness and a kind of pseudointellectual vibe. Or like a bit egotistical? I don't know if that's what you're getting at, but it's what I was getting from it.