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

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#211

Post by Legend2440 »

camillomiller wrote: post #166
lxgr wrote: post #148

Earlier 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?

The environmental cost is significantly overblown, especially water usage.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#212

Post by lanthissa »

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…

people pay them to use it, they find that positive

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#214

Post by papichulo2023 »

tiagod wrote: post #161
papichulo2023 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Efros–Leung, PatchMatch? Nearest neighbours was "AI" before difusion models.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#216

Post by overgard »

Pretty mixed feelings on this. From the page at least, the images are very good. I'd find it hard to know that they're AI. Which I think is a problem. If we had a functioning congress, I wonder if we might end up with legislation that these things need to be watermarked or otherwise made identifiable as AI generated..

I also don't like that these things are trained on specific artist's styles without really crediting those artists (or even getting their consent). I think there's a big difference between an individual artist learning from a style or paying it homage, vs a machine just consuming it so it can create endless art in that style.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#217

Post by Legend2440 »

pesus wrote: post #188
stackedinserter wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The 'costs to society' are massively overblown, and some of them (automating jobs) are actually benefits to society.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#218

Post by lifeisstillgood »

Pretty much all of the kerfuffle over AI would go away of it was accurately priced.

After 2008 and 2020 vast (10s of trillions) amounts of money has been printed (reasonably) by western gov and not eliminated from the money supply. So there are vast sums swilling about - and funding things like using massively Computationally intensive work to help me pick a recipie for tonight.

Google and Facebook had online advertising sewn up - but AI is waaay better at answering my queries. So OpenAI wants some of that - but the cost per query must be orders of magnitude larger

So charge me, or my advertisers the correct amount. Charge me the right amount to design my logo or print an amusing cat photo.

Charge me the right cost for the AI slop on YouTube

Charge the right amount - and watch as people just realise it ain’t worth it 95% of the time.

Great technology - but price matters in an economy.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#219

Post by ndriscoll »

mcmcmc wrote: post #159
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…

So the use case is just IP theft so you can get more Paw Patrol? AI aside, if you’ve truly exhausted all the simple readers, maybe she should move on to more advanced books instead of repeating more of the same and gamifying it, which seems a great way to destroy a child’s natural curiosity.

Sure, I don't view "IP" as valid, don't entertain the idea that it is possible to "steal" it, and absolutely don't care that someone out there might be sad imagining me making a coloring book for my kids. In fact I'd go so far as to say that holding the position that there's something wrong with tailoring teaching to a child's interests and avoiding that for fear of copyright concerns of all things actually makes you morally bad.

You overestimate how many there are. There's like 10 stories at that level. I do also read ones with paragraphs to her, but she can't do those herself because she's 4.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#220

Post by Gigachad »

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.

I actually love MS word posters. It's a million times more authentic and enjoyable than a slop generation. If a band put up an AI poster I'd assume they lack any kind of taste which is the whole reason I'd want to listen to a band anyway.

I know this is controversial in tech spaces. But most people, particularly those in art spaces like music actually appreciate creativity, taste, effort, and personal connection. Not just ruthless efficiency creating a poster for the lowest cost and fastest time possible.

Post reply on HN