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

ChatGPT Images 2.0

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#71

Post by recitedropper »

hahahacorn wrote: post #60

One of the images in the blog ( https://images.ctfassets.net/kftzwdyauwt9/4d5dizAOajLfAXkGZ7... ) is a carbon copy of an image from an article posted Mar 27, 2026 with credits given to an individual: https://www.cornellsun.com/article/2026/03/cornell-accepts-5... Was this an oversight? Or did their new image generation model generate an image that was essentially a copy of an existing image?

This is hilarious. Seems like kind of a random image for a model to memorize, but it could be.

There is definitely enough empirical validation that shows image models retain lots of original copies in their weights, despite how much AI boosters think otherwise. That said, it is often images that end up in the training set many times, and I would think it strange for this image to do that.

Regardless, great find.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#72

Post by dktp »

Melatonic wrote: post #65
dktp wrote: post #63

One interesting thing I found comparing OpenAI and Gemini image editing is - Gemini rejects anything involving a well known person. Anything. OpenAI is happy to edit and change every time I tried I have a sideproject where I want to display standup comedies. I thought I could edit standup comedy posters with some AI to fit my design. Gemini straight up refuses to change any image of any standup comedy poster involvin…

How does it determine they are well known and not just similar looking?

I don't know tbh. I've tried it on 10-20 various level of famous standups and Gemini refuses every time

Just for testing, I just tried this https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_KJdP4FLGTo/sddefault.jpg ("Redesign this image in a brutalist graphic design style"). Gemini refuses (api as well as UI), OpenAI does it

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#73

Post by vunderba »

Melatonic wrote: post #68
ea016 wrote: post #13

Price comparison: GPT Image 2 Low : 1024×1024 $0.006 | 1024×1536 $0.005 | 1536×1024 $0.005 Medium : 1024×1024 $0.053 | 1024×1536 $0.041 | 1536×1024 $0.041 High : 1024×1024 $0.211 | 1024×1536 $0.165 | 1536×1024 $0.165 GPT Image 1 Low : 1024×1024 $0.011 | 1024×1536 $0.016 | 1536×1024 $0.016 Medium : 1024×1024 $0.042 | 1024×1536 $0.063 | 1536×1024 $0.063 High : 1024×1024 $0.167 | 1024×1536 $0.25 | 1536×1024 $0.25

Weird that they restrict the resolution so much. Does it fall apart with more detail (when zoomed in) or does the cost just skyrocket?

It's usually based on what they've been trained on. There aren't very many models that'll do higher resolutions outside of Seedream but adherency is worse.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#76

Post by minimaxir »

hahahacorn wrote: post #60

One of the images in the blog ( https://images.ctfassets.net/kftzwdyauwt9/4d5dizAOajLfAXkGZ7... ) is a carbon copy of an image from an article posted Mar 27, 2026 with credits given to an individual: https://www.cornellsun.com/article/2026/03/cornell-accepts-5... Was this an oversight? Or did their new image generation model generate an image that was essentially a copy of an existing image?

Given the recency of that image, it is unlikely it is in the training data and therefore I would go with oversight.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#77

Post by Vachyas »

lehmacdj wrote: post #49
thevinter wrote: post #19

Every time a new image gen comes out I keep saying that it won't get better just to be surprised again and again. Some of the examples are incredible (and incredibly scary. I feel like this is truly the point where understanding if something is AI becomes impossible)

So do you think there will be a better image model in a year?

I'm honestly unsure what could be improved at this point.

Consistency? So it fails less often?

Based on the released images, (especially the one "screenshot" of the Mac desktop) I feel like the best images from this model are so visually flawless that the only way to tell they're fake is by reasoning about the content of the image itself (ex. "Apple never made a red iPhone 15, so this image is probably fake" or "Costco prices never end in .96 so this image is probably fake")

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#78

Post by arjie »

hahahacorn wrote: post #60

One of the images in the blog ( https://images.ctfassets.net/kftzwdyauwt9/4d5dizAOajLfAXkGZ7... ) is a carbon copy of an image from an article posted Mar 27, 2026 with credits given to an individual: https://www.cornellsun.com/article/2026/03/cornell-accepts-5... Was this an oversight? Or did their new image generation model generate an image that was essentially a copy of an existing image?

That has to be the wrong stock image included or something, bloody hell.

     magick image-l.webp image-r.jpg -compose difference -composite -auto-level -threshold 30% diff.png
It's practically all dark except for a few spots. It's the same image just different size compression whatever. I can't find it in any stock image search, though. Surely it could not have memorized the whole image at that fidelity. Maybe I just didn't search well enough.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#79

Post by ChrisArchitect »

Fake layouts, fake handwritten kid story, fake drunk photos? All from training on real things people did.

As with anything AI, we are not ready for the scale of impact. And for what? Like, why are you proud of this?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#80

Post by [deleted] »

simonw wrote: post #15

I've been trying out the new model like this: OPENAI_API_KEY="$(llm keys get openai)" \ uv run https://tools.simonwillison.net/python/openai_image.py \ -m gpt-image-2 \ "Do a where's Waldo style image but it's where is the raccoon holding a ham radio" Code here: https://github.com/simonw/tools/blob/main/python/openai_imag... Here's what I got from that prompt. I do not think it included a raccoon holding a ham radio…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN