200+ points in Arena.ai , that's incredible. They are cleaning house with this model
point delta (from 2nd) not total
ChatGPT Images 2.0
191–200 of 1001 posts
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#192I wonder if this will be decent at creating sprite frame animations. So far I've had very poor results and I've had to do the unthinkable and toil it out manually.
I had exactly the same thought! I've got a game I've been wanting to build for over a decade that I recently started working on. The art is going to be very challenging however, because I lack a lot of those skills. I am really hoping the AI tools can help with that. Is anyone doing this already who can share information on what the best models are?
Use the imagegen skill in codex and ask it to create sprites. It works really well.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#193> 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 completely disagree, this replaces art as a job. Why does human art need monetary feedback to be shared? If people require a paycheck to make art then it was never anything different than what Ai generated images are.
As for advertising being depressing - its a little late to get up on the high horse of anti-Ads for tech after 2 decades of ad based technology dominating everything. Go outside, see all those bright shiny glittery lights, those aren't society created images to embolden the spirit and dazzle the senses, those are ads.
North Korea looks weird and depressing because the don't have ads. Welcome to the west.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#194> 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…
The issue is that the signalling makes sense when human generated work is better than AI generated. Soon AI generated work will be better across the board with the rare exception of stuff the top X% of humans put a lot of bespoke highly personalized effort into. Preferring human work will be luxury status-signalling just like it is for clothing, food, etc.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#195> 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 tend to share your same view. But is there really a line like you describe? Maybe AI just needs to get a few iterations better and we'll all love what it generates. And how's it really any different than any Photoshop computer output from the past?
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#196Earlier 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?
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.
I'm not saying it's worthless for yourself, it's worthless to me as a viewer. AI content is great for your own usage, but there is no point posting and distributing AI generation.
I could have generated my own content, so just send the prompt rather than the output to save everyone time.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#197Yay, let's burn the planet computing more slopium..
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#198> 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…
Porn and memes. Obviously. This is all that Stable Diffusion has been used for since it was released.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Depends on if you believe it will ever become cheaper. Either hardware, inspiring more efficient smaller models, or energy itself. The techno optimist believes that that is the inevitable and investable future. But on what horizon and will it get “zip drived” before then?
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#200Genuine 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 problem is I'd prefer access to near-photorealistic image gen to be commodified vs something that is restricted, as then only those willing to skirt the law or can leverage criminal networks have access to it.