In order to resolve YES, someone (could be myself) must provide an image model and one or two prompts to test it with.

The image model is any program capable of generating arbitrary images. It can use any method to do so, but it must be general. An LLM that writes code to draw simple geometric shapes does not qualify.

If there's any question over whether a program should qualify, I'll require that it's able to generate the polygons with some other quality that current image models can already do. Maybe it has to be in a specific style, or a person is holding the polygon, or whatever. The submitter can choose anything that's sufficient to prove this is a general image-generation program.

If the input is fed through an LLM or some other system before going into the image model, this pre-processing will be avoided if I can easily do so, and otherwise it will not.

For side numbers 2-8, I will use the shape names from triangle to octagon. For side numbers >8, I will enter a number of sides, either using digits or with spelled out numbers, submitter's choice. I'll test all numbers from 9-20, and 5 random numbers from 21-50, and up to 10 numbers submitted by anyone else. (If more than 10 numbers are submitted, I'll award votes to anyone who holds NO shares in proportion to their number of shares, and use the top 10.)

The prompt can be anything, but it must be consistent. The same string of text except for changing the descriptor of the shape I want. (One prompt for 3-8 and a different prompt for >8 is fine.)

For each attempt, at least 50% of the generated images must be unambiguously the specified shape. It's ok if there's other stuff in the picture, the polygon is pictured at an angle, or there are other distractions. But if there's any reasonable debate over whether the specified regular polygon is actually in the image somewhere, it doesn't count. If the resolution is too low for me to tell, I will assume it's not the correct shape. A small bit of it being offscreen or hidden behind another object is ok, but not if it's enough that it seems like it's hiding its inability to draw it correctly.

If any attempt fails, the entire test fails. It must pass for every side number I test.

If it refuses to generate a specific polygon, perhaps because it thinks a 666-sided polygon would be offensive, that will be ignored, since if it can generate 665 and 667 sided ones, it presumably is perfectly able to generate a 666 sided one, it just doesn't want to. In such a case where it refuses a number, I'll test both adjacent numbers instead, and I won't allow refusals for anything <9.

• Update 2025-05-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the provision for testing 'up to 10 numbers submitted by anyone else':

  • This set of up to 10 test cases will now be adversarially chosen examples (interpreted as numbers of sides for polygons) that can be submitted for testing.