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

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#241

Post by bulletsvshumans »

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…

Democratizing visual communication is arguably useful, for instance helping people to create diagrams that illustrate a concept they wish to convey. This is contingent on the tech working sufficiently well that the visuals are more effective at communication than the text that went into producing them though.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#242

Post by runarberg »

overgard wrote: post #201
tempaccount5050 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dunno, I have some band posters that are pretty cool pieces of art that obviously had a lot of thought put into them (pre-AI era stuff). I don't think I'd hang up an AI generated band poster, even if it was cool; I'd feel weird and tacky about it.

I was hosting a Karaoke event in my town and really went out of my way to ensure my promotional poster looked nothing like AI. I really really really did not want my townfolks thinking I would use AI to design a poster.

My design rules were: No gradients; no purple; prefer muted colors; plenty of sharp corners and overlapping shapes; Use the Boba Milky font face;

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#243

Post by squidsoup »

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.

> band poster doesn't have to be a labor of love artisanal thing

Very few bands would agree with that statement.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#244

Post by bayindirh »

3dsnano wrote: post #239
camillomiller wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

absolutely without a doubt it is

If that energy is used for research, maybe. If used to answer customer questions or generate Studio Ghibli knock-offs, it's not worth it, even a bit.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#245

Post by Legend2440 »

bayindirh wrote: post #240
Legend2440 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The environmental cost is significantly overblown, especially water usage.

I work with direct liquid cooled systems. If the datacenter is working with open DLC systems (most AI datacenters in the US in fact do), there's a lot of water is being wasted, 7/24/365. A mid-tier top-500 system (think about #250-#325) consumes about a 0.75MW of energy. AI data centers consume magnitudes more. To cool that behemoth you need to pump tons of water per minute in the inner loop. Outer loop might be slow…

It's not that it doesn't use water; it's that water is not scarce unless you live in a desert.

As a country, we use 322 billion gallons of water per day. A few million gallons for a datacenter is nothing.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#246

Post by alextheparrot »

swingboy wrote: post #230
samiwami wrote: post #9

do they have anything similar to SynthID, or are they just pretending that problem doesn't exist? I know this is probably mega cherry-picked to look more impressive, but some of the images are terrifyingly realistic. They seem to have put a lot of effort into the lighting.

Maybe a stupid question, but does the SynthID still exist if you screenshot and crop your generated image? What if you screenshot, rotate _just_ a bit, and crop? Or apply some other effect to the image like adjusting the coloring a little bit, adding some blur, etc.

The paper they published last year goes over some of these transformations: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.09263

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#247

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> Genuine question: what positive use cases are sufficient to accept the harm from image generators?

Diagrams and maps. So much text-based communication begs for a diagram or a map.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#248

Post by Jtarii »

Legend2440 wrote: post #217
pesus wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The girls that have to deal with their classmates generating nudes of them for the rest of time are glad to hear that their concerns are "overblown".

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#249

Post by Arch485 »

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 think you're misunderstanding - most people's beef with AI art isn't that it "isn't made by experts", it's that

1) it's made from copyrighted works, and the original authors receive no credit; 2) it is (typically) low-effort; 3) there are numerous negative environmental effects of the AI industry in general; 4) there are numerous negative social effects of AI in general, and more specifically AI generated imagery is used a lot for spreading misinformation; 5) there are numerous negative economic effects of AI, and specifically with art, it means real human artists are being replaced by AI slop, which is of significantly lower quality than the equivalent human output. Also, instead of supporting multiple different artists, you're siphoning your money to a few billion dollar companies (this is terrible for the economy)

As a side note, if you have a business which truly cannot afford to pay any artists, there are a lot of cheaper, (sometimes free!) pre-paid art bundles that are much less morally dubious than AI. Plus, then you're not siphoning all of your cash to tech oligarchs.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#250

Post by bayindirh »

Legend2440 wrote: post #245
bayindirh wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work with direct liquid cooled systems. If the datacenter is working with open DLC systems (most AI datacenters in the US in fact do), there's a lot of water is being wasted, 7/24/365. A mid-tier top-500 system (think about #250-#325) consumes about a 0.75MW of energy. AI data centers consume magnitudes more. To cool that behemoth you need to pump tons of water per minute in the inner loop. Outer loop might be slow…

It's not that it doesn't use water; it's that water is not scarce unless you live in a desert. As a country, we use 322 billion gallons of water per day . A few million gallons for a datacenter is nothing.

The problem is you don't just use that water and give it back.

The water gets contaminated and heated, making it unsuitable for organisms to live in, or to be processed and used again.

In short, when you pump back that water to the river, you're both poisoning and cooking the river at the same time, destroying the ecosystem at the same time too.

Talk about multi-threaded destruction.

Post reply on HN