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

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#161

Post by tiagod »

papichulo2023 wrote: post #142
dakiol wrote: post #118

> 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.

AI for textures for over a decade? What AI?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#162

Post by Thonn »

papichulo2023 wrote: post #142
dakiol wrote: post #118

> 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.

Are you kidding? I think I see more vitriol for AI in gaming communities than anywhere else. To the point where steam now requires you to disclose its usage

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#163

Post by stackedinserter »

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…

I have plenty for you:

- package design

- pictures for manuals and guides

- navigation and signs

- booklets, tickets and flyers

- logos of all sorts

- websites

- illustrations for books

And many. many others. Not every image is art and very few illustrators are artists.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#164

Post by tempaccount5050 »

Gigachad wrote: post #136
dakiol wrote: post #118

> 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…

This is where I’m at. If you can’t be bothered to write/make it, why would I be bothered to read or review it?

Because I'm not an artist and can't afford to pay one for whatever business I have? This idea that only experts are allowed to do things is just crazy to me. A band poster doesn't have to be a labor of love artisanal thing. Were you mad when people made band posters with MS word instead of hiring a fucking typesetter? I just don't get it.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#165

Post by Barbing »

tills13 wrote: post #152
spijdar wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

The difference between "art in general" and this is scale and speed. Sure, I'll grant you that people are going to engage in deception with or without this but the barrier to entry with this is literally on the floor. Do you have a $5 prepaid VISA? You can generate whatever narrative you want in 30 seconds. Replace the $5 Prepaid VISA with the pocketbook of a three letter agency and it starts getting crazy.

>starts getting crazy

Got pretty wild w/the Iranian propaganda that reportedly _resonated with Americans_ (didn't verify that claim)

Slopaganda - https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/the-team-b...

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#166

Post by camillomiller »

lxgr wrote: post #148
dakiol wrote: post #118

> 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.

Is that worth the cost of this technology? Both in terms of financial shenanigans and its environmental cost?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#168

Post by tempaccount5050 »

Oras wrote: post #140

My test for image models is asking it to create an image showing chess openings. Both this model and Banana pro are so bad at it. While the image looks nice, the actual details are always wrong, such as showing pawns in wrong locations, missing pawns, .. etc. Try it yourself with this prompt: Create a poster to show opening game for Queen's Gambit to teach kids to play chess.

What move? Who's turn is it? Declined or accepted? Garbage in, garbage out.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#169

Post by lxgr »

Oras wrote: post #140

My test for image models is asking it to create an image showing chess openings. Both this model and Banana pro are so bad at it. While the image looks nice, the actual details are always wrong, such as showing pawns in wrong locations, missing pawns, .. etc. Try it yourself with this prompt: Create a poster to show opening game for Queen's Gambit to teach kids to play chess.

It almost nailed it for me (two squares have both white and black color). All pieces and the position look correct.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#170

Post by zulban »

Gigachad wrote: post #136
dakiol wrote: post #118

> 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…

This is where I’m at. If you can’t be bothered to write/make it, why would I be bothered to read or review it?

Nobody can be bothered to make my cat out of Lego and the size of mount Everest but if an AI did I'd sure love to see it.

Your quip is pithy but meaningless.

Post reply on HN