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

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#251

Post by latexr »

lxgr wrote: post #148
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 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.

So we get a fresh new cheap way to spread propaganda and lies and erode trust all across society while cementing power and control for a few at the top, and in return get a few measly icons (as if there weren’t literally thousands of them freely available already) and silly images for momentaneous amusement?

What a rotten exchange.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#252

Post by neom »

Here is my regular "hard prompt" I use for testing image gen models:

"A macro close-up photograph of an old watchmaker's hands carefully replacing a tiny gear inside a vintage pocket watch. The watch mechanism is partially submerged in a shallow dish of clear water, causing visible refraction and light caustics across the brass gears. A single drop of water is falling from a pair of steel tweezers, captured mid-splash on the water's surface. Reflect the watchmaker's face, slightly distorted, in the curved glass of the watch face. Sharp focus throughout, natural window lighting from the left, shot on 100mm macro lens."

google drive with the 2 images: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-QAftXiGMnnkLJ2Je-ZH...

Ran a bunch both on the .com and via the api, none of them are nearly as good as Nano Banana.

(My file share host used to be so good and now it's SO BAD, I've re-hosted with them for now I'll update to google drive link shortly)

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#253

Post by NikolaNovak »

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…

While I agree with you, hacker news audience is not in the middle of the bell curve.

I get this sounds elitist - but tremendous percentage of population is happily and eagerly engaging with fake religious images, funny AI videos, horrible AI memes, etc. Trying to mention that this video of puppy is completely AI generated results in vicious defense and mansplaining of why this video is totally real (I love it when video has e.g. Sora watermarks... This does not stop the defenders).

I agree with you that human connection and artist intent is what I'm looking for in art, music, video games, etc... But gawd, lowest common denominator is and always has been SO much lower than we want to admit to ourselves.

Very few people want thoughtful analysis that contradicts their world view, very few people care about privacy or rights or future or using the right tool, very few people are interested in moral frameworks or ethical philosophy, and very few people care about real and verifiable human connection in their "content" :-/

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#254

Post by dudul »

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.

What do you mean? Parent clearly describes the Queen's Gambit. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 There is no room for ambiguity here.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#255

Post by Jtarii »

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.

So the benefits are that something that was already being mass produced with no issue is slightly easier to mass produce?

It's not a particularly compelling argument.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#256

Post by NathanielK »

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…

Ok, but the models only know what to draw because we fed them images of dementia patients and babies.

Maybe image generators can be a loophole for consent legally, but it seems even grosser morally.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#257

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

Jtarii wrote: post #231
spijdar wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same question could be poised of art in general. I know that response would (and probably should) ruffle peoples' figurative feathers, but I think it's worth considering. A lot of art isn't "necessary for society". The question still stands, "are the benefits worth the cost to society", but it bears remembering we do a lot of things for fun which aren't "necessary for society".

If you want to say the complete destruction of truth is worth it because some people are having "fun" then idk.

I was worried about the complete destruction of truth, but it seems that's not the result of commoditized image generation. False AI-generated images have been widespread for years, and as far as I've seen, society has adapted very well to the understanding that images can't prove anything without detailed provenance. I'd argue that this has been helped, actually, by random people on the Internet routinely generating plausible images of events that obviously didn't happen.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#259

Post by SamuelAdams »

latexr wrote: post #251
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.

So we get a fresh new cheap way to spread propaganda and lies and erode trust all across society while cementing power and control for a few at the top, and in return get a few measly icons (as if there weren’t literally thousands of them freely available already) and silly images for momentaneous amusement? What a rotten exchange.

I wonder what will happen to the entire legal system. It used to be fairly difficult to create convincing photos and videos.

AI can probably fool most court judges now. Or the defense can refute legitimate evidence by saying “it’s AI / false”. How would that be refuted?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#260

Post by loudandskittish »

papichulo2023 wrote: post #142
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…

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.

There are already more games being released on Steam than anyone can keep up with, I'm not sure how adding another "wave" on top of it helps.
Post reply on HN