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

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#271

Post by vunderba »

_the_inflator wrote: post #128
vunderba wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's usually based on what they've been trained on. There aren't very many models that'll do higher resolutions outside of Seedream but adherency is worse.

Processing power, not training. The larger the scene in 2ď the more you need to compute. The resolution itself is not flexible. Imagine painting a white canvas. It is still a pixel per pixel algo which costs LLM GPU power while being the easiest thing to do without it. You can create larger images by creating separate parts you recombine. But they may not perfectly match their borders. It is a Landau thing not a trad…

It depends on the model. Diffusion models, which are among the more popular approaches, are typically trained at a specific image resolution.

For example, SDXL was trained on 1MP images, which is why if you try to generate images much larger than 1024×1024 without using techniques like high-res fixes or image-to-image on specific regions, you quickly end up with Cthulhu nightmare fuel.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#272

Post by tecoholic »

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…

100%. A picture is worth a thousand words only when it conveys something. I love to see the pictures from my family even when they are taken with no care to quality or composition but I would look at someone else’s (as in gallery/exhibitions) only when they are stunning and captured beautifully. The medium is only a channel to communicate.

Also, this can’t be real. How many publications did they train this stuff on and why are there no acknowledgment even if to say - we partnered with xyz manga house to make our model smarter at manga? Like what’s wrong with this company?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#273

Post by yreg »

echelon wrote: post #113
amunozo wrote: post #51

This is not as exciting as previous models were, but it is incredibly good. I am starting to think that expressing thoughts in words clearly is probably the most important and general skill of the future.

> I am starting to think that expressing thoughts in words clearly is probably the most important and general skill of the future. Without question. AI will be indistinguishable from having a team. Communicating clearly has always and will always mattered. This, however, is even stronger. Because you can program and use logic in your communications. We're going to collectively develop absolutely wild command over ins…

On the other hand LLMs are getting very good at understanding poorly constructed instructions as well.

So being able to express oneself clearly in a structured way may not be such an edge.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#274

Post by lucaslazarus »

bulletsvshumans wrote: post #228
runarberg wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely unrelated, but I am curious about your keyboard layout since you mistyped ö instead of - these two symbols are side by side in the Icelandic layout, and the ö is where - in the English (US) layout. As such this is a common type-o for people who regularly switch between the Icelandic and the English (US) layout (source: I am that person). I am curious whether more layouts where that could be common.

This is also a stylistic choice that the New Yorker magazine uses for words with double vowels where you pronounce each one separately, like coöperate, reëlect, preëminent, and naïve. So possibly intentional.

Yes, this is exactly correct, and I will die on this hill. Additionally, I don't like the way a hyphenated "techno-optimism" looks and "technOOPtimism" is a bit too on-the-nose.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#275

Post by joegibbs »

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.

You shouldn't have believed photos since Stalin had Yezhov airbrushed out of them. The only thing that makes a photo more trustworthy than a painting is that it "looks" more real, and passes itself off as true. But there have always been photographic fakes, manipulation and curation of the photos to push a message. AI will finally end this and people will realise that the image of the thing is not the thing itself.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#276

Post by GaryBluto »

honzaik wrote: post #102
thelucent wrote: post #91

It seems to still have this gpt image color that you can just feel. The slight sepia and softness.

I was just wondering about that. Did they embrace it as a “signature look”? it cant be accidental, right?

It's definitely not accidental but I'm not completely sure whether or not it is simply a "tell" or watermark or an attempt to foster brand association.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#278

Post by loudandskittish »

Gigachad wrote: post #136
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…

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?

Exactly how I feel. There is already more art, movies, music, books, video games and more made by human beings than I can experience in my lifetime. Why should I waste any time on content generated by the word guessing machine?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#280

Post by masswerk »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #194
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…

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.

The issue being, it's not an expression of anything. Merely like a random sensation, maybe some readable intent, but generic in execution, which isn't about anything even corporate art should be about. Are we going to give up on art, altogether?

Edit: One of the possible outcomes may be living in a world like in "Them" with glasses on. Since no expression has any meaning anymore, the message is just there being a signal of some kind. (Generic "BUY" + associated brand name in small print, etc.)

Post reply on HN