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

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#181

Post by RIMR »

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…

My only actual use of image or video AI tools is self-entertainment. I like to give it prompts and see the results it gives me.

That's it. I can't think of a single actual use case outside of this that isn't deliberately manipulative and harmful.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#182

Post by bogtap82 »

tempaccount5050 wrote: post #168
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.

In some cases I would agree with this, but image model releases including this one are beginning to incorporate and market the thinking step. It is not a reach at this point to expect the model to take liberties in order to deliver a faithful and accurate representation of your request. A model could still be accurate while navigating your lack of specificity.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#183

Post by strulovich »

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…

Here’s one example:

I just recently used for image generation to design my balcony.

It was a great way to see design ideas imagined in place and decide what to do.

There are many cases people would hire an artist to illustrate an idea or early prototype. AI generated images make that something you can do by yourself or 10x faster than a few years ago.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#184

Post by XorNot »

ibudiallo wrote: post #141

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.

IMO you're fighting the wrong battle: there'll always be a new model.

But the broader concept of fake news and the manufactured nature of media and rhetoric is much more relevant - e.g. whether or not something's AI is almost immaterial to the fact that any filmed segment does not have to be real or attributed to the correct context.

Its an old internet classic just to grab an image and put a different caption on it, relying on the fact no one can discern context or has time to fact check.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#185

Post by underlipton »

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…

>Like, in terms of art, it's discarded (art is about humans)

I dunno how long this is going to hold up. In 50 years, when OpenAI has long become a memory, post-bubble burst, and a half-century of bitrot has claimed much of what was generated in this era, how valuable do you think an AI image file from 2023 - with provenance - might be, as an emblem and artifact of our current cultural moment, of those first few years when a human could tell a computer, "Hey, make this," and it did? And many of the early tools are gone; you can't use them anymore.

Consider: there will never be another DallE-2 image generation. Ever.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#186

Post by [deleted] »

stackedinserter wrote: post #163
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.

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#187

Post by 2ndorderthought »

chromacity wrote: post #115
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?

Oh my. You still make those? Ever since model chupacobra 2.46 we have AI agents making those for us. At one point I was on the fence about totally outsourcing it to agents but it's way more efficient. Now I have 50 posts a day under different names.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#188

Post by pesus »

stackedinserter wrote: post #163
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.

How do these justify the costs to society?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#189

Post by AkBKukU »

tempaccount5050 wrote: post #164
Gigachad wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> can't afford to pay one for whatever business I have

At small scales what "art" does your business need? If you can't afford to hire an artist (which is completely fine, I couldn't for my business!) do you really need the art or are you trying to make your "brand" look more polished than it actually is? Leverage your small scale while you can because there isn't as much of an expectation for polish.

And no, a band poster doesn't have to be a labor of love. But it also doesn't have to be some big showy art either. If I saw a small band with a clearly AI generated poster it would make me question the sources for their music as well.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#190

Post by gpt5 »

simonw wrote: post #37
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…

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…

I tried it on the ChatGPT web UI and it also worked, although the ham radio looks like a handbag to me.

https://postimg.cc/wyxgCgNY

Post reply on HN