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

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#291

Post by idiotsecant »

fwipsy wrote: post #266
atleastoptimal wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only novel art is interesting. AI can't really do novel. It's a prediction algorithm; it imitates. You can add noise, but that mostly just makes it worse. It can be used to facilitate original stuff though. But so many people want to make art, and it's so cheap to distribute it, that art is already commoditized. If people prefer human-created art, satisfying that preference is practically free.

There are lots of things that are novel to you without necessarily being novel to the universe.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#292

Post by idiotsecant »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #259
latexr wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

By having people also testify to authenticity and coming down like the hand of God on fakers, the same way we make sure evidence is real now.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#293

Post by bayindirh »

subroutine wrote: post #224
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?

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?

In short, yes.

A modern laptop is running almost fanless, like a 486 from the days of yore.

A single H200 pumps out 700W continuously in a data center, and you run thousands of them.

Also, don't forget the training and fine tuning runs required for the models.

Mass transportation / global logistics can be very efficient and cheap.

Before the pandemic, it was cheaper to import fresh tomatoes from half-world away rather than growing them locally in some cases. A single container of painting supplies is nothing in the grand scheme of things, esp. when compared with what data centers are consuming and emitting.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#294

Post by apsurd »

SyneRyder wrote: post #284
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.

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 t…

Downvotes because nobody actually wants this. Those image uses serve a purpose to an external audience. The audience doesn't want this shit.

Now of course I'm being dramatically absolute. I'm sure I already consume these things without knowing it. These things serve a function. Offloading to AI is the implementer admitting they can't be bothered to care whether it serves the function.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#295

Post by avaer »

slibhb wrote: post #282
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.

Whether art is considered good is in practice highly contextual. One of those contexts is who (what) made it.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#296

Post by JimsonYang »

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 a 5’5” male can make myself look taller on dating apps

Short kings on tinder no more!

/s

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#297

Post by papa_bear »

slibhb wrote: post #282
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.

Provenance is part of the work. If a roomful of monkeys banged out something that looked like anything, I'd absolutely hang it on my wall. I would not say the same for 99% of AI generated art.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#298

Post by freedomben »

gizmodo59 wrote: post #192
freedomben wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had exactly the same thought! I've got a game I've been wanting to build for over a decade that I recently started working on. The art is going to be very challenging however, because I lack a lot of those skills. I am really hoping the AI tools can help with that. Is anyone doing this already who can share information on what the best models are?

Use the imagegen skill in codex and ask it to create sprites. It works really well.

Thank you!
Post reply on HN