Visual ChatGPT: Talking, Drawing and Editing with Visual Foundation Models
Open accessAbstract
ChatGPT is attracting a cross-field interest as it provides a language interface with remarkable conversational competency and reasoning capabilities across many domains. However, since ChatGPT is trained with languages, it is currently not capable of processing or generating images from the visual world. At the same time, Visual Foundation Models, such as Visual Transformers or Stable Diffusion, although showing great visual understanding and generation capabilities, they are only experts on specific tasks with one-round fixed inputs and outputs. To this end, We build a system called \textbf{Visual ChatGPT}, incorporating different Visual Foundation Models, to enable the user to interact with ChatGPT by 1) sending and receiving not only languages but also images 2) providing complex visual questions or visual editing instructions that require the collaboration of multiple AI models with multi-steps. 3) providing feedback and asking for corrected results. We design a series of prompts to inject the visual model information into ChatGPT, considering models of multiple inputs/outputs and models that require visual feedback. Experiments show that Visual ChatGPT opens the door to investigating the visual roles of ChatGPT with the help of Visual Foundation Models. Our system is publicly available at \url{https://github.com/microsoft/visual-chatgpt}.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Visual ChatGPT combines visual foundation models like BLIP, Stable Diffusion, etc. with LangChain to handle complex visual tasks.
“Visual ChatGPT [244] combines visual foundation models like BLIP [247], Stable Diffusion [248], etc. with LangChain 4 to handle complex visual tasks”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [244]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 197
- Authors
- Wu, C., Yin, S., Qi, W., Wang, X., Tang, Z., & Duan, N.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft Research Asia (China) (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2303.04671
- OpenAlex
- W4323717348
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 61
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- vision foundation models, multimodal language models, image generation, image editing, visual question answering, multi-model collaboration, prompt engineering, visual feedback, Stable Diffusion, vision transformer
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review