It's extremely slow, takes several minutes to generate an image.
Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model
161–170 of 593 posts
Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m trying to figure out if there’s any justification for using it in a business world outside of: “We don’t want to pay a human.” You could easily say the same about anytime computers or robots or automation have taken a job away. We’ve been going down this road for decades.
Those industries (computers, robots) created other jobs though. This doesn’t seem to.
It will. There will be people whose skillset is advanced prompting.
Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model
#163What a great thing this didn't exist in the past. We likely wouldn't have had any of the amazing artworks that we have now. Imagine an AI generated Mona Lisa, Nightwatch or Sistine Chapel ceiling because prompting would have been so much cheaper than paying Leonardo, Rembrandt or Michelangelo... Now extrapolate to all other artforms. Sculpture seems safe, for now, but only barely so.
I think of it more as that AI will destroy the profit motive in all things, not just art. What we used to think of as talent/skill/experience will no longer be scarce, because anyone will be able to make anything with a prompt. The perceived value will be in wholes built of valueless parts (gestalts).
AI is incompatible with capitalism, but the world isn't ready for that. So we'll have a prolonged period of intense aggregation where more and more value is attributed to systems of control that already have more than they could ever spend, long after the free parts could have provided for basic human needs.
In other words, the masters existed because they had benefactors and a market for their art and inventions. Today there are better artists and inventors toiling in obscurity, but they won't be remembered because they merely make rent. Which gets harder every day, so there's a kind of deification of the working class hero NPC mindset and simultaneously no bandwidth for ingenuity (what we once thought of as divine inspiration).
Terence McKenna predicted this paradox that the future's going to get weirder and weirder back in 1998:
Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
All image models can generate images that were not in its training dataset, but it can't generate reductive extreme cases like your example.
What about it is extreme? It's a concept, like "generate an xray image" eventually hopefully the cure to cancer could be represented as a simple molecule or whatever, I'm not saying I know.
There is currently no knowledge nor progress for what a cure for cancer, and nothing a LLM can draw upon.
You could generate "pregnant Elon Musk with four arms and three eyes doing yoga poses" because the image models have enough visual concepts of each of those individual things, but that specific image is (likely) not in any training dataset.
Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model
#165These image gen models are getting so advanced and life like that increasingly the general public are being duped into believing AI images are actually real (ex Facebook food images or fake OF models). Don't get me wrong I will enjoy the benefits of using this model for expressing myself better than ever before, but can't help feeling there's something also very insidious about these models too.
> Facebook food images or fake OF models
What in the world is a fake OF model?
Does "OF" stand for "of food"?
Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model
#166I'm sure this has been written about but here's what happens long term - images are commoditized and lose their emotional appeal. Probably about half of us here remember photos before the cell phone era. They were rare, and special, and you'd have a few photos per YEAR to look back on. The feel of photos back then, was at least 100x stronger than now. They were a special item, could be given as a gift. But once they…
[deleted]
Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
>fake OF models Soon many real OF models will be out of job when everyone will be able to produce content to their personal taste from a few prompts.
You can’t really because these powerful models are censored. You can create lewd pictures with open models but they aren’t nearly as good or easy to use.
Just a matter of time and open models will get there. Not once have we seen a moat across the model spectrums.
Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model
#168I'm sure this has been written about but here's what happens long term - images are commoditized and lose their emotional appeal. Probably about half of us here remember photos before the cell phone era. They were rare, and special, and you'd have a few photos per YEAR to look back on. The feel of photos back then, was at least 100x stronger than now. They were a special item, could be given as a gift. But once they…
> you'd have a few photos per YEAR to look back on My parents took way more photos with film than I do with my cellphone camera.
While it wasn't really rare, it was far from common. It was almost full time hobby back then. (I grew up in sixties/seventies.)
Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model
#169I'm sure this has been written about but here's what happens long term - images are commoditized and lose their emotional appeal. Probably about half of us here remember photos before the cell phone era. They were rare, and special, and you'd have a few photos per YEAR to look back on. The feel of photos back then, was at least 100x stronger than now. They were a special item, could be given as a gift. But once they…
It sounds like you've been reading Susan Sontag. For others, I recommend:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Photography
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regarding_the_Pain_of_Others
Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually think this was a good thing. Manipulating images incredibly convincingly was already possible but the cost was high (many hours of highly skilled work). So many people assumed that most images they were seeing were "authentic" without much consideration. By making these fake images ubiquitous we are forcing people to quickly learn that they can't believe what they see on the internet and tracking down sour…
I feel like there is one or two generations of people who are tech savy and not 100% gullible when it comes to online things. Older and younger generations are both completely lost imho, in a blind test you wouldn't discern a monkey from a human scrolling tiktok &co
How so? This "tech savvy and not 100% gullible" generation, gave birth to a political landscape dominated by online ragebait.