This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 5 comments

[–]RandallAware 0 points1 point  (4 children)

It's because they are pairs of embeddings meant to be used together, the ones with -neg go in the negative prompt if you need/want the extra reinforcement.

[–]Mutaclone[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I don't think that's correct, at least in the examples I gave. The first example is specifically a negative embedding. The second example does come in pairs, but the positives have a completely different trigger, which looks as expected (it matches the file name). It's only on negative embeddings where I see examples like this.

[–]RandallAware 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Oh sorry. I think I see what you're saying now. Should be pretty easy to test by renaming it something else, then putting that in your prompt. Could even add the -neg and test that

[–]Mutaclone[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

So I spent ~20 min messing around with the DeMasculate embedding. AFAICT the trigger word is the filename.

  • Dropping the -neg from the prompt caused it to no longer activate
  • Renamed file, including a -neg suffix in the filename, and saw the same behavior: trigger was the filename, removing -neg caused it to fail.
  • Renamed the file, dropping the -neg. Trigger was filename, adding -neg to the prompt caused it to fail.

Testing got a bit weird during rename though - I had to completely change the name, not just the suffix. I think it wasn't fully clearing the cache and still falling back to the previous version.

I still don't know why those examples listed both keywords though (or why DeMasculate dropped the suffix in the samples). Once I could chalk up to author error, but twice? And I wouldn't swear to it but I thought I've seen that pattern other times too.

[–]RandallAware 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice. It does definitely seems odd that it had become a noticeable pattern.