You have to run the notebook itself by following the instructions at the top, then you can customize the output (lower temperatures will follow the rules better).
Sorry, you said on pageload, I thought you meant when the page is loaded :)
On the cards you posted to reddit:
a) "Keening Vythat", "Tombsis Satyr", "Quarpling Barrier". These are typical nonsense-nonsense names (as opposed to the fantasy-nonsense names found on M:tG cards) that are typical, in my experience, of card names generated by language models trained at the character level. M:tG fantasy-nonsense names, like "Rathi", "Kapashen", "Viashino", etc, are derived from a real-world narrative created specifically to theme the cards. A backstory. Without such a backstory, "Vythat", "Tombsis", "Quarpling" are just random strings that have no reason to be used as names. This is an important limitation of this kind of card generation, especially given the very low chance that you'll see any more "Vythat" cards (and if you did, they'd likely have a completely different function). Also "Keening Vythat" sounds like a creature, rather than a Sorcery.
So, first problem: thematic consistency of names is all over the place.
b) The text on Keening Vythat is ungrammatical:
Basic lands are basic land type in addition to its other types.
c) Seismic Mind has an interesting ability (the one that modifies its base P/T). The mana cost makes sense, actually (although I bet it'd end up at {4U} at R&D), and the effect is very Blue. Nice.
d) Tombsis Satyr also has an even more interesting ability (feeds the inner Johnny). The cost and colours are right and the Angel type is just the cherry on top. Very nice. If only it wasn't called "Tombsis Satyr"... X)
e) Quarpling Barrier's ability is more of a crippling weakness than an interesting ability. A creature without Defender would not be called a "Barrier" these days, either. Pass, I fear.
f) Trade Damage is more balanced than interesting, but it's very well balanced! It would fit very nicely in a modern tempo deck. Nice also.
So that's three nice, two not so nice and a bit of a problem with themes. Still, those are not that bad at all. Unfortunately, there's just five of them. At this point it's hard to tell whether your project is able to generate better cards than other projects - and why would it, if it's using the same tech as those projects? You can fine tune and turn more knobs, but what, fundamentally, is the innovation here?
I suggest that you add the five cards above (and/or others) to the colab of your project alongside the auto-generated ones, to have examples of the "best case" and "average case" together. That'll give a boost to the appeal of your project.
Anyway, better than I originally thought but still a ways to go.
Again, this (and my other text generation projects) are optimizing more for humor/chaos than accuracy, and there is a bolded important notice before the text emphasizing that the results may not be legal. Per the other comments on that Reddit thread, that appears to be the correct approach as the crazier-but-barely-legal cards are what resonate the best (the "bad" RoboRosewater cards were the most popular, not the good ones).
Curating only cards which are grammatically good is in itself misleading. Part of the reason I work on text generation in the first place is to illustrate its limitations.
I encourage you to run the notebook itself instead of arguing a No True Scotsman about something I never tried to assert. This notebook is not a thesis paper, just a side project about a ML model that took more time to train than to write the code for.
I'm not arguing a "No True Scotsman". I offered criticism to help you improve your work, as criticism should do. I'm sorry that you took it the wrong way.
Here's some examples of curated cards generated that probably fit your description of "interesting": https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/n396g8/i_trained_...