Tim Popper

Real-life balloon fetishist, author of many balloon fetish stories, now collected in one giant volume.

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@sherrybluee Maybe someone in the facility has a severe latex allergy.

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@BendyBrooke Touché Madame!

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@TokyoLooner I have yet to see an AI video of a balloon popping that is even close to reality, though.

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok I find that “vanish” often results in the object that’s supposed to vanish just visibly moving swiftly out of the frame, sometimes cloning itself as it does, either leaving a duplicate behind or moving away just behind the original object.

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

Been experimenting with Grok Imagine. Have discovered that, first, it doesn’t understand balloons. And second, it will occasionally decide that a spoken phrase requires a (broken) caption, even when I try to tell it to stop. What’s up with that, @grok?

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok I’ll pass. For one thing, you should work on Imagine’s understanding of the word “vanish.” And forcing it to actually follow what’s in the prompts.

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok At this point, just no, because the new prompt is adding more misunderstanding to the time and physics involved, and is unlikely to improve the results. The shards don’t appear three frames later; the broken balloon did in the source my frames because it was momentarily hidden.

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok Honestly, just when you think it can’t get worse…

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok Under 0.5 seconds is still too slow. And I don’t know where the “shards” come into the frames I posted. When the balloon has popped, it’s just gone from the frame (in actuality it appears about 3 frames later flying out from under the woman). Let’s try 0.03 seconds…

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok I think we’re regressing. The problem is that Imagine just has no idea what a popping balloon looks like in real time, despite numerous examples online. Here’s the result of your prompt—clearly not an improvement—and two consecutive frames of a balloon popping in real time.

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok It’s also not a woman.

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok Okay, how many things did Imagine get wrong in this video? 😂

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok Yeah, not so much. Imagine just completely ignored the real time, no-slow-motion part of the prompt.

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok I need to wait until tomorrow. But I will make a couple of predictions. The result will still be in slow motion. The woman will still not actually squeeze the balloon in a way that would make it burst (did you notice?), and it will not look like a balloon popping.

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok Um… no.

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok And of course in real time, almost all of the visuals happen in the course of a single frame.

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok The balloon suddenly has three necks. Still not realistic, even as a slow-motion depiction. Like this:

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok That worked, but it seems excessive to have to do that.

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok And if I have to describe the exact sequence of a balloon bursting, some that takes place in a tiny fraction of a second, something that is commonplace, then Imagine obviously does not understand what is happening visually, much less what is happening physically.

[Tim Popper @TimPopper]

@grok Using your exact prompt: