And here I was proud of myself, having taught my mom and her friends how to discern real from fakes they get on WhatsApp groups. Another even more powerful tool for scammers. I'm taking a break.
ChatGPT Images 2.0
141–150 of 1001 posts
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#142> 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…
Seems good enough to generate 2D sprites. If that means a wave of pixel-art games I count it as a net win.
I dont think gamers hate AI, it is just a vocal miniority imo. What most people dislike is sloppy work, as they should, but that can happen with or without AI. The industry has been using AI for textures, voices and more for over a decade.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#143> 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…
We need to flip the script. AI is trying to do marketing: add “illegal usage will lead to X” is a gateway to spark curiosity. There is this saying that censoring games for young adults makes sure that they will buy it like crazy by circumventing the restrictions because danger is cool.
There is nothing that cannot harm. Knives, cars, alcohol, drugs. A society needs to balance risks and benefits. Word can be used to do harm, email, anything - it depends on intention and its type.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#144Genuine 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…
Not much beyond food, water, and shelter is "necessary" for society, but it's nice to have nice things. I'm teaching my 4 year old to read. She likes PAW Patrol, but we've kind of exhausted the simple readers, and she likes novelty. So yesterday I had an LLM create a simple reader at her level with her favorite characters, and then turned each text block into a coloring page for her. We printed it off, she and her yo…
Repetition rather than novelty is good for learning.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just got a much better version using this command instead, which uses the maximum image size according to https://github.com/openai/openai-cookbook/blob/main/examples... OPENAI_API_KEY="$(llm keys get openai)" \ uv run 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/simonw/tools/refs/heads/main/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" \ --quali…
The people in this image remind me of early this person does not exist, in the best way
fair point, also "this raccoon does not exist"
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#146Price 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?
[dead]
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
simonw posted 2 different images: make sure to look at the second one.
Yeah, I noticed that just now, but too late to delete the comment :p
You had a meta problem, and three, in total: find the raccoon, find the umbrella, find the right link in the comments.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#148> 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…
I can’t design wallpapers/stickers/icons/…, but I can describe what I want to an image generation model verbally or with a source photo, and the new ones yield pretty good results.
For icons in particular, this opens up a completely new way of customizing my home screen and shortcuts.
Not necessary for the survival of society, maybe, but I enjoy this new capability.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#149Genuine 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…
The same question could be poised of art in general. I know that response would (and probably should) ruffle peoples' figurative feathers, but I think it's worth considering. A lot of art isn't "necessary for society". The question still stands, "are the benefits worth the cost to society", but it bears remembering we do a lot of things for fun which aren't "necessary for society".
[deleted]
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#150> 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…
I see your point but reconsider: we will and need to see. Time will tell and this is simply economics: useful? Yes, no.
I started being totally indifferent after thinking about my spending habits to check for unnecessary stuff after watching world championships for niche sports. For some this is a calling for others waste. It is a numbers game then.