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

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#281

Post by vunderba »

dktp wrote: post #63

One interesting thing I found comparing OpenAI and Gemini image editing is - Gemini rejects anything involving a well known person. Anything. OpenAI is happy to edit and change every time I tried I have a sideproject where I want to display standup comedies. I thought I could edit standup comedy posters with some AI to fit my design. Gemini straight up refuses to change any image of any standup comedy poster involvin…

Are you using Google Gemini directly? I've found the Vertex API seems to be significantly less strict.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#282

Post by slibhb »

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…

> Like, in terms of art, it's discarded (art is about humans)

If a work of art is good, then it's good. It doesn't matter if it came from a human, a neanderthal, AI, or monkeys randomly typing.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#283

Post by runarberg »

dilDDoS wrote: post #264
subroutine wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you asking if the 10 seconds it takes AI to generate an image is more costly to the environment than a commissioned graphics artist using a laptop for 5-6 hours, or a painter who uses physical media sourced from all over the world?

Cheaper/faster tech increases overall consumption though. Without the friction of commissioning a graphics artist to design something, a user can generate thousands of images (and iterate on those images multiple times to achieve what they want), resulting in way more images overall. I'm not really well versed on the environmental cost, more just (neutrally) pointing out that comparing a single 10s image to a 5-6 hou…

Also, ignoring training when talking about the environmental costs is bad faith. Without training this image would not exist, and if nobody generating images like these, the training would not happen. So we should really ask, the 10 seconds it took for inference, plus the weeks or months of high intensity compute it took to train the model.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#284

Post by SyneRyder »

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.

No idea why you were down voted, I think that's exactly how this will get used.

I'm already imagining this is how the local live indie band night I sometimes go to will generate poster images each week for the bands that are playing, whether to put up at the venue or post to social media. And the bands might be using it to design images to put on their t-shirts and other merch. I already know some indie bands using this stuff for their album covers.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#285

Post by apsurd »

tantalor wrote: post #173
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…

Prototyping. Suppose you have a hard time expressing your vision in words or executing it visually. 1. Generate 100s or 1000s of low-fidelity candidates, find something that matches your vision, iterate. 2. Hand that generated image off to a human and say, "This is what I'm thinking of, now how do we make it real?" Important: do not skip the last step.

You audit thousands of genAI prototype candidates?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#286

Post by vunderba »

skybrian wrote: post #174

This time it passed the piano keyboard test: https://chatgpt.com/s/m_69e7ffafbb048191b96f2c93758e3e40 But it screwed up when attempting to label middle C: https://chatgpt.com/s/m_69e8008ef62c8191993932efc8979e1e Edit: it did fix it when asked.

When NB 2 came out I actually had to increase the difficulty of the piano test - reversing the colors of all the accidentals and the naturals, and it still managed it perfectly.

https://mordenstar.com/other/nb-pro-2-tests

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#287

Post by Lerc »

NetOpWibby wrote: post #134
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 Human Renaissance is something I've been thinking of too and I hope it comes to pass. Of course, I feel like societally, things are gonna get worse for a lot of folks. You already see it in entire towns losing water or their water becoming polluted. You'd think these kickbacks leaders of these towns are getting for allowing data centers to be built would go towards improving infrastructure but hah, that's unreali…

>You already see it in entire towns losing water or their water becoming polluted

Do you have any references for such cases? I have seen talk of such thing at risk, but I am unaware of any specific instances of it occuring

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#289

Post by Jtarii »

GaryBluto wrote: post #268
Jtarii wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Nobody tell those girls about Photoshop, or scissors and glue.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN