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

111–120 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#111

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#113

Post by echelon »

amunozo wrote: post #51

This is not as exciting as previous models were, but it is incredibly good. I am starting to think that expressing thoughts in words clearly is probably the most important and general skill of the future.

> I am starting to think that expressing thoughts in words clearly is probably the most important and general skill of the future.

Without question.

AI will be indistinguishable from having a team. Communicating clearly has always and will always mattered.

This, however, is even stronger. Because you can program and use logic in your communications.

We're going to collectively develop absolutely wild command over instruction as a society. That's the skill to have.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#115

Post by chromacity »

kibibu wrote: post #107

Genuine question: what positive use cases are sufficient to accept the harm from image generators? One that i can think of: - replacing photography of people who may be unable to consent or for whom it may be traumatic to revisit photographs and suitable models may not be available, e.g. dementia patients, babies, examples of medical conditions. Most other vaguely positive use cases boil down to "look what image gene…

How else do you expect me to illustrate my LLM-generated blog posts about AI?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#116

Post by swalsh »

Been using the model for a few hours now. I'm actually reall impressed with it. This is the first time i've found value in an image model for stuff I actually do. I've been using it to build powerpoint slides, and mockups. It's CRAZY good at that.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#118

Post by dakiol »

> On the flip side, there are hundreds of ways that these tools cause genuine harm, not just to individuals but to entire systems.

Yeah, agree. I think it's the first time I'm asking myself: Ok, so this new cool tech, what is it good for? Like, in terms of art, it's discarded (art is about humans), in terms of assets: sure, but people is getting tired of AI-generated images (and even if we cannot tell if an image is AI-generated, we can know if companies are using AI to generate images in general, so the appealing is decreasing). Ads? C'mon that's depressing.

What else? In general, I think people are starting to realize that things generated without effort are not worth spending time with (e.g., no one is going to read your 30-pages draft generated by AI; no one is going to review your 500 files changes PR generated by AI; no one is going to be impressed by the images you generate by AI; same goes for music and everything). I think we are gonna see a Renaissance of "human-generated" sooner rather than later. I see it already at work (colleagues writing in slack "I swear the next message is not AI generated" and the like)

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#119

Post by IsTom »

Melatonic wrote: post #98
arjie wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 did…

Or the image was generated with AI in the first place and a test for Images 2.0

Well, it's on web archive. So unless they got their hands on it almost a month early or escaped their light cone it wasn't.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#120

Post by infecto »

kibibu wrote: post #107

Genuine question: what positive use cases are sufficient to accept the harm from image generators? One that i can think of: - replacing photography of people who may be unable to consent or for whom it may be traumatic to revisit photographs and suitable models may not be available, e.g. dementia patients, babies, examples of medical conditions. Most other vaguely positive use cases boil down to "look what image gene…

Could the same argument not be applied to practically everything and have drastically different perspectives from people?
Post reply on HN