Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 593 posts

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#171

Post by gm678 »

__alexs wrote: post #53
wordpad wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the complete opposite is true. Artists aren't doing it for the money. With advanced tools like these they wouldve iterated much faster and created much grander designs. Art is about pushing limits of what's possible and AI just raises those limits.

There is a tremendous amount of "art" that is produced for purely commercial reasons. It employs many thousands of people. These roles are definitely threatened by image generators. Agree that if you are Artist this is not going to be a big concern to you.

Also, many (I would even venture to say most) of the great artists most people know of earned their bread with intermittent commercial contracts, even rote advertising commissions in the 19th/20th century.

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#172

Post by [deleted] »

wordpad wrote: post #43
jacquesm wrote: post #21

What 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 feel like the complete opposite is true. Artists aren't doing it for the money. With advanced tools like these they wouldve iterated much faster and created much grander designs. Art is about pushing limits of what's possible and AI just raises those limits.

[deleted]

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#174

Post by rdedev »

wordpad wrote: post #43
jacquesm wrote: post #21

What 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 feel like the complete opposite is true. Artists aren't doing it for the money. With advanced tools like these they wouldve iterated much faster and created much grander designs. Art is about pushing limits of what's possible and AI just raises those limits.

An aspect of art is this pursuit of pushing boundaries within the confines of what is considered good. Would an artist with an infinite image generator be interested in pushing said boundaries? Maybe but they will definitely miss out on getting stuck on an idea and coming up something completely new

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#175

Post by bena »

neogodless wrote: post #165
nickandbro wrote: post #17

These 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"?

It stands for "OnlyFans" a website originally for creators to engage directly with their audiences but quickly became a website where women sold explicit pictures of themselves to subscribers.

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#176

Post by sekai »

whynotmaybe wrote: post #41
nickandbro wrote: post #17

These 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.

>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.

> 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.

net positive to society

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#177

Post by seydor »

zug_zug wrote: post #102

I'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…

contrary to that i use it to restore old pictures and it has increased their emotional appeal

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#178

Post by mannanj »

vunderba wrote: post #153
zug_zug wrote: post #102

I'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…

> If I see a million fake Tom Cruise videos, then it oversaturates my desire for desire for all Tom Cruise movies. I often call this over-saturation the media equivalent of semantic satiation. Anything commoditized or mass-manufactured isn't going to have emotional appeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_satiation

I've often had an "addictive" personality and now I see it as an over satiation, in a semantic way, sort of thing. When I found something I liked I would over saturate my self in it, and lose interest and move on faster than others I knew.

Feels like what you described describes that inner personality trait better than I have heard before.

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#179

Post by hypeatei »

jacquesm wrote: post #21

What 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'll just be extremely candid: a lot of people don't give a shit about these art pieces or art in general. It's okay if you do, there is nothing wrong with that, but it's a myopic view that the world would be worse off if we didn't have a portrait of Mona Lisa.

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#180

Post by ge96 »

minimaxir wrote: post #164
ge96 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What I'm saying is if this thing can generate random things (noise) couldn't it make that or new tech like negative mass. Anyway I get it too if we don't know then something we made wouldn't know.
Post reply on HN