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

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#171

Post by colechristensen »

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…

>In general, I think people are starting to realize that things generated without effort are not worth spending time with

Agreed mostly, BUT

I'm building tools for myself. The end goal isn't the intermediate tool, they're enabling other things. I have a suspicion that I could sell the tools, I don't particularly want to. There's a gap between "does everything I want it to" and "polished enough to justify sale", and that gap doesn't excite me.

They're definitely not generated without effort... but they are generated with 1% of the human effort they would require.

I feel very much empowered by AI to do the things I've always wanted to do. (when I mention this there's always someone who comes out effectively calling me delusional for being satisfied with something built with LLMs)

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#172

Post by ndriscoll »

drivebyhooting wrote: post #144
ndriscoll wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, and she gets that, but at some point she completely memorizes the stories. She also asks if we can get new books at the store, but they don't make 'em that fast.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#173

Post by tantalor »

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…

Prototyping. Suppose you have a hard time expressing your vision in words or executing it visually.

1. Generate 100s or 1000s of low-fidelity candidates, find something that matches your vision, iterate.

2. Hand that generated image off to a human and say, "This is what I'm thinking of, now how do we make it real?"

Important: do not skip the last step.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#175

Post by lxgr »

alasano wrote: post #130
modeless wrote: post #114

Can it generate transparent PNGs yet?

Previous gpt image models could (when generating, not editing) but gpt-image-2 can't. Noticed it earlier while updating my playground to support it https://github.com/alasano/gpt-image-playground

Works for me, but really weirdly on iOS: Copying to clipboard somehow seems to break transparency; saving to the iOS gallery does not. (And I’ve made sure to not accidentally depend on iOS’s background segmentation.)

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#176

Post by resters »

simonw wrote: post #126
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 think there's real value to be had in using this for diagrams. Visual explanations are useful, but most people don't have the talent and/or the time to produce them. This new model (and Nano Banana Pro before it) has tipped across the quality boundary where it actually can produce a visual explanation that moves beyond space-filling slop and helps people understand a concept. I've never used an AI-generated image i…

This is the key point. In my view it's just like anything else, if AI can help humans create better work, it's a good thing.

I think what we'll find is that visual design is no longer as much of a moat for expressing concepts, branding, etc. In a way, AI-generated design opens the door for more competition on merits, not just those who can afford the top tier design firm.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#178

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

throwaway2027 wrote: post #3

I know people like to dunk on ChatGPT and Gemini and say Claude is or used to be better, but you can still use worse models when you're out of usage AND make use of Nano Banana and and ChatGPT Image generation with separate limits for your subscription. I think it could make it a more package as a whole for some people (non-programmers). I do like having the option and am excited for which improvements they've done t…

I still see that piss filter on their samples. It isn’t as bad, but someone there really loves it.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#179

Post by dzonga »

for video game assets this is massive.

but in general though - will people believe in anything photographic ?

imagine dating apps, photographic evidence.

I'm guessing we're gonna reach a point where - you fuck up things purposely to leave a human mark.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#180

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN