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

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#331

Post by lossyalgo »

bulletsvshumans wrote: post #241
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.

My workplace does this for EVERYTHING. And they are always immediately obviously AI slop, both because we all know they wouldn't ever pay an actual artist to create graphics, but also because the people creating the graphics have no sense of style and let it generate the most generic shit possible with zero creativity.

It's definitely not helpful. It's just annoying and disgusting and a waste of resources IMO. But hey at least Powerpoint presentations have AI slop instead of stuff taken from Google Images!?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#332

Post by agnishom »

I don't know how this benefits humanity. In what way was ChatGPT Images 1.0 not already good enough? Perhaps some new knowledge was created in the process?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#333

Post by Jtarii »

joegibbs wrote: post #275
Jtarii wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are vastly, vastly underselling what is being lost. You can no longer look at a piece of art without first asking "is this even real", that is a collosal loss to the experience of being human. You can't just appreciate anything anymore without questioning it.

>You shouldn't have believed photos since Stalin had Yezhov airbrushed out of them.

It isn't just about propaganda photos, it is about -litearlly everything-, even things people have no incentive to fake, like cat videos, or someone doing a backflip or a video of a sunset.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#334

Post by dymk »

jll29 wrote: post #322
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.

AI can also be used to fight propaganda, for instance BiasScanner makes you aware of potentially manipulative news: https://biasscanner.org . So that makes AI a "dual good", like a kitchen knife: you can cut your tomato or kill you neighbor with it, entirely up to the "user". Not all users are good, so we'll see an intense amplification of both good and bad.

It's more work to fight bullshit than it is to generate it, though. Saying "Use AI to fight it" is inherently a losing strategy when the other side also has an AI that is just as powerful.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#335

Post by franze »

the tragedy of image generating ai is that it is used to massively create what already exists instead of creating something truly unique - we need ai artists - and yeah, they will not be appreciated

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#336

Post by rafael-lua »

galleywest200 wrote: post #308
bulletsvshumans wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can these people not just create a diagram with their own hands? Literally a pencil and paper. I am at the point where I would prefer a poorly human drawn diagram with terrible handwriting over AI slop.

It is not the making of the diagram that is the problem, but often the fact I have no idea how to put it visually. AI is awesome at this.

Now, does that justify the harm? Not for me, but this issue is way out of my league.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#337

Post by mdasen »

madrox wrote: post #202

This seems like a great time to mention C2PA, a specification for positively affirming image sources. OpenAI participates in this, and if I load an image I had AI generate in a C2PA Viewer it shows ChatGPT as the source. Bad actors can strip sources out so it's a normal image (that's why it's positive affirmation), but eventually we should start flagging images with no source attribution as dangerous the way we flag…

> Bad actors can strip sources out

I think the issue is that it's not just bad actors. It's every social platform that strips out metadata. If I post an image on Instagram, Facebook, or anywhere else, they're going to strip the metadata for my privacy. Sometimes the exif data has geo coordinates. Other times it's less private data like the file name, file create/access/modification times, and the kind of device it was taken on (like iPhone 16 Pro Max).

Usually, they strip out everything and that's likely to include C2PA unless they start whitelisting that to be kept or even using it to flag images on their site as AI.

But for now, it's not just bad actors stripping out metadata. It's most sites that images are posted on.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#338

Post by cpill »

bayindirh wrote: post #293
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?

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 rathe…

these are unfair comparisons. it's not just a single laptop running all day it's all the graphic designer laptops that get replaced. it's not a single container of painting supplies it's all off them, (which are toxic by the way).

so if power were plentiful and environmental you'd be onboard with it?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#339

Post by Jtarii »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #257
Jtarii wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 generatin…

>society has adapted very well to the understanding that images can't prove anything without detailed provenance

Donald Trump is the president of the United States.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#340

Post by madrox »

mdasen wrote: post #337
madrox wrote: post #202

This seems like a great time to mention C2PA, a specification for positively affirming image sources. OpenAI participates in this, and if I load an image I had AI generate in a C2PA Viewer it shows ChatGPT as the source. Bad actors can strip sources out so it's a normal image (that's why it's positive affirmation), but eventually we should start flagging images with no source attribution as dangerous the way we flag…

> Bad actors can strip sources out I think the issue is that it's not just bad actors. It's every social platform that strips out metadata. If I post an image on Instagram, Facebook, or anywhere else, they're going to strip the metadata for my privacy. Sometimes the exif data has geo coordinates. Other times it's less private data like the file name, file create/access/modification times, and the kind of device it wa…

You're implying social platforms aren't bad actors ;)

In seriousness, social platforms attributing images properly is a whole frontier we haven't even begun to explore, but we need to get there.

Post reply on HN