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

301–310 of 593 posts

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

#301

Post by keiferski »

avmich wrote: post #269
keiferski wrote: post #237

Some random predictions about what AI image generation tools will do/are doing to art: 1. The narrative/life of the artist becomes a lot more important. The most successful artists are ones that craft a story around their life and art, and don't just create stuff and stop. This will become even more important. 2. Originality matters more than ever. By design, these tools can only copy and mix things that already exis…

I mostly disagree. > 1... The narrative/life of the artist becomes a lot more important. When I watch a movie, I don't care about the artist's life. I care about character life, that's very different. > 2... Originality matters more than ever. By design, these tools can only copy and mix things that already exist. It's like you assigning to humans divine capabilities :) . Hyperbolizing a little, humans also only copy…

1. I meant artists writ large, not specifically movies. My point being that community management, PR, having a brand, etc. are becoming a key element of an individual artist’s career. Examples of this abound – see the recent Markiplier film as a case in point. That movie did well because Mark’s audience wanted to help him, not because it’s such an original genius concept for a movie.

But even then – people obviously go watch movies because they like the actor/director involved. It’s not really clear why anyone would care about an AI actor. People want to watch people, not imitations of them.

The rest of your comments seem to be summarized as “it has gotten better and therefore it will eventually solve all problems it has now.” Which may be true in a technical sense, but again this is not taste.

A technical company like Space X really has nothing to do with this conversation, and I think you missed my point about it being uncool. It’s not about critics, it’s about culture at large.

At this point I think identifying a work as AI-created makes people instantly devalue it. We are rapidly approaching the point where no one wants to admit something is AI-created, because it comes with negative perceptions.

Originality comes from humans experiencing the world and interacting with it. What AI tool is a living being interacting with the world? None, of course. Hence the constant generic slop images of Impressionism or some other already-existing art style.

Just look at the images in the link: this is the best they can do? A kangaroo at a cafe in Paris? Could anything be more devoid of good taste?

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

#302

Post by porphyra »

thewebguyd wrote: post #211
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…

I believe this is the reason for a return to interest in analog media with both my generation (millenials) and gen-z. I do wedding photography on the side, and the past ~2 years have seen a huge increase in requests for film photography, either exclusively film or as an add-on to digital. Offering film has been one of the best things I've done for my side hustle. Likewise with the sort of resurgence of vinyl, and the…

When film photography came out in the 1830s, painters and intellectuals were really mad about it commoditizing and cheapening images compared to paintings.

* On first seeing a photograph around 1840, the influential French painter Paul Delaroche proclaimed, "From today, painting is dead!" [1]

* Charles Baudelaire, in 1859: "As the photographic industry was the refuge of all failed painters, too ill-equipped or too lazy to complete their studies, this universal infatuation bore not only the character of blindness and imbecility, but also the color of vengeance. [...] it is obvious that this industry, by invading the territories of art, has become art’s most mortal enemy" [2]

[1] https://www.barnesfoundation.org/whats-on/early-photography

[2] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/10/16/photo-mortal/

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

#303

Post by clint »

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…

I lived plenty of my life prior to the cell phone era (born early 80s).

I do not have the same feeling you seem to have about photos from this era. Some are fine, sure, but looking back on them, most of them are very bad photos and most do not capture anything close to what I'd call an emotional feeling.

I would go so far as to say 99% of the photos from my life prior to 2000s really suck, like really badly. Some also degrade visually and lose their impact over time.

Since you couldn't be sure what you caught more than often what is captured is poorly framed, blurry, weird, poorly timed, and often left out a lot of stuff that was actually going on. You also had to try and be super selective because each photograph had a real tangible cost.

Conversely, I find being able to take many photos in quick succession and across a long period of time at a very high clarity allows me to select a photo that most closely matches my feeling in those moments at that event.

Even more so with AI photos. Although many models cannot do this well, their abilities get better each day and can allow you to compose or edit/modify a photo in such a way that matches your internal feelings rather than the blandness of what is essentially a random photo of random stuff that may or may not convey an emotion anywhere near to what I was feeling or remember feeling in that moment.

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

#304

Post by Sevii »

MaxikCZ wrote: post #251

I have Google AI Ultra. Where can I test this? They say its in aistudio, which says its a paid model and I need to setup billing (as if paying for Ultra isnt enough). They say its available in antigravity, but I cant seem to find it there?

Works for me with a Pro sub at https://gemini.google.com/app

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

#305

Post by nightski »

estearum wrote: post #235
nightski wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no it just makes me use a different model. My uses are not nefarious at all, although it's fine for you to assume so. There are real, legitimate reasons why SynthId is actively harmful that do not involve deceiving or manipulating people at all. SynthId is just a stain on legitimate AI users. People who want to deceive or manipulate are not using Google models anyways. They are going to use a model without s…

> There are real, legitimate reasons why SynthId is actively harmful that do not involve deceiving or manipulating people at all I am legitimately curious: can you name some? > Actually no it just makes me use a different model Yes, this is a very good thing when "a different model" means "a worse model." > People who want to deceive or manipulate are not using Google models anyways. They are going to use a model wit…

It doesn't mean a worse model. It may mean that at certain points in time now which tend to be very short lived, but model advancement will hit diminishing returns and at that point models will become commoditized. But even now which model is best is not always the SynthId models from Google.

In fact, the only thing allowing differentiation now is how compute heavy current architectures are. It's very possible this will turn out to not be necessary.

Also my logic was not "Nefarious uses require no safety rails". That was your logic you injected into the conversation. I was merely saying that nefarious users were more likely to use models with safety rails off.

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

#307

Post by nightski »

procinct wrote: post #272
nightski wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no it just makes me use a different model. My uses are not nefarious at all, although it's fine for you to assume so. There are real, legitimate reasons why SynthId is actively harmful that do not involve deceiving or manipulating people at all. SynthId is just a stain on legitimate AI users. People who want to deceive or manipulate are not using Google models anyways. They are going to use a model without s…

Can you explain your use case? I’d be interested to understand.

Every legitimate use case for AI. It is a way to mark legitimate work done using AI tools as inferior.

This might be acceptable if it prevented or limited nefarious use cases. But it does no such thing. It doesn't help at all on that front actually and is not a problem that can be solved by technology alone.

I view SynthId as more of a method of control. It's a way for Google to label work produced by an individual using their tools as their own.

I much prefer open models that let me be creative, write code, etc.. without trying to control/track/mark me.

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

#308

Post by jplusequalt »

avmich wrote: post #269
keiferski wrote: post #237

Some random predictions about what AI image generation tools will do/are doing to art: 1. The narrative/life of the artist becomes a lot more important. The most successful artists are ones that craft a story around their life and art, and don't just create stuff and stop. This will become even more important. 2. Originality matters more than ever. By design, these tools can only copy and mix things that already exis…

I mostly disagree. > 1... The narrative/life of the artist becomes a lot more important. When I watch a movie, I don't care about the artist's life. I care about character life, that's very different. > 2... Originality matters more than ever. By design, these tools can only copy and mix things that already exist. It's like you assigning to humans divine capabilities :) . Hyperbolizing a little, humans also only copy…

>Engineers are in business of converting non-technical problems into technical ones.

Art is not a problem to be solved.

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

#309

Post by pkaye »

soared wrote: post #126
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #59

I'm building my personal home right now. The AI image models have been a game-changer in designing the look of the house. My architect did an OK job, but the details that Nano Banana added really bring the house up a notch. I just do hundreds of renders from the basic 3D models and I find looks that I like and iterate from there. We are implementing the renders from Nano Banana over our Interior Designers designs. We…

Same! I redid my backyard entirely and needed ideas. Gemini took a pile of dirt and gave me countless ideas, improved my plans, recommended materials, etc. a designer gave me two out of the box ideas that Gemini didn’t come up with, but it did everything else perfectly. (Designer said, put a patio out in the yard and put your table there, and take your ugly shed and make it the center of attention, since you’ll never…

Did you do this in Gemini or Nano Banana? Should I give multiple view points and top view of the back yard? I'm trying to see how much info to give.

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

#310

Post by estearum »

nightski wrote: post #305
estearum wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are real, legitimate reasons why SynthId is actively harmful that do not involve deceiving or manipulating people at all I am legitimately curious: can you name some? > Actually no it just makes me use a different model Yes, this is a very good thing when "a different model" means "a worse model." > People who want to deceive or manipulate are not using Google models anyways. They are going to use a model wit…

It doesn't mean a worse model. It may mean that at certain points in time now which tend to be very short lived, but model advancement will hit diminishing returns and at that point models will become commoditized. But even now which model is best is not always the SynthId models from Google. In fact, the only thing allowing differentiation now is how compute heavy current architectures are. It's very possible this w…

Can't you provide a few (or even one) example of a legitimate use case that SynthID destroys?
Post reply on HN