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

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#381

Post by davebren »

rafael-lua wrote: post #336
galleywest200 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point of a diagram is that you have something in your head to turn into the diagram. There's no point if you can't do it yourself and the image generator is coming up with it for you.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#383

Post by pesus »

tdb7893 wrote: post #319
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.

It's always felt like way overhyping to call something "democratization" when it's something I could do as a middle schooler in 2005. It takes some skill to do very well but it's not like basic diagram creation isn't something people already could do for basically free (I create figures for my job all the time now and chatGPT is more expensive than tools I use for design). Commissioning high quality diagrams from a d…

Yeah, it's not "democratization", people were just too lazy to do it before. It only takes some basic effort and a little bit of time to be able to create decent versions of those things.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#384

Post by davebren »

ticulatedspline wrote: post #205
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…

Is the argument any different replacing the word "image generators" with "photoshop" ?

It turns out that effort matters

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#385

Post by kakapo5672 »

Jtarii wrote: post #255
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.

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.

No, the benefits are that something can be mass produced magnitudes faster and easier, which in turn also creates more latitude for creativity and new spaces.

It's a true state-change, which makes the argument pretty compelling IMO.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#386

Post by jrumbut »

dymk wrote: post #334
jll29 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And no amount of BS detecting tells you what is true. The challenge that I see a lot of people have is they really don't have a framework to incorporate new information into.

They're adrift, every new "fact" (whether true or false) blows them in a new direction. Often they get led in terrible directions from statements that are entirely true (but missing important context).

A lot of financial cons work that way, a long string of true statements that seem to lead to a particular conclusion. I know that if someone is offering me 20% APY there will usually be some risk or fee that offsets those market-beating gains (it may be a worthwhile risk or a well earned fee, but that number needs to trigger further investigation).

We need people to be equipped with that sort of framework in as many areas as possible, but we seem to be moving backwards in that area.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#387

Post by Jtarii »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #370
Jtarii wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I don't understand the response. Do you think that Donald Trump would not be president of the United States if powerful image models hadn't been invented? Or perhaps you're referring to the AI-generated media he's often posted since being elected; when he showed a video of getting in a fighter jet to dump poo on protesters, do you think many people believed that was a real thing he actually did?

I'm more reacting to the premise that society is positively adapting to the post truth world. Which it clearly is not. Half the population of the US is already living in a fake news mirror universe where everything is inverted. More convincing fake news is not going to help.

And this is just straight out of Putin's playbook, if everything is fake then people just stop beliving in the concept of truth altogether.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#388

Post by Lucasoato »

porphyra wrote: post #127

The improvement in Chinese text rendering is remarkable and impressive! I still found some typos in the Chinese sample pic about Wuxi though. For example the 笼 in 小笼包 was written incorrectly. And the "极小中文也清晰可读" section contains even more typos although it's still legible. Still, truly amazing progress. Vastly better than any previous image generation model by a large margin.

Is this even better than Chinese models? I suppose they focus much more on that aspect, simply because their training data might include many more examples of Chinese text.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#389

Post by [deleted] »

simonw wrote: post #37
simonw wrote: post #15

I've been trying out the new model like this: OPENAI_API_KEY="$(llm keys get openai)" \ uv run https://tools.simonwillison.net/python/openai_image.py \ -m gpt-image-2 \ "Do a where's Waldo style image but it's where is the raccoon holding a ham radio" Code here: https://github.com/simonw/tools/blob/main/python/openai_imag... Here's what I got from that prompt. I do not think it included a raccoon holding a ham radio…

I just got a much better version using this command instead, which uses the maximum image size according to https://github.com/openai/openai-cookbook/blob/main/examples... OPENAI_API_KEY="$(llm keys get openai)" \ uv run 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/simonw/tools/refs/heads/main/python/openai_image.py' \ -m gpt-image-2 \ "Do a where's Waldo style image but it's where is the raccoon holding a ham radio" \ --quali…

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#390

Post by kansface »

overgard wrote: post #216

Pretty mixed feelings on this. From the page at least, the images are very good. I'd find it hard to know that they're AI. Which I think is a problem. If we had a functioning congress, I wonder if we might end up with legislation that these things need to be watermarked or otherwise made identifiable as AI generated.. I also don't like that these things are trained on specific artist's styles without really crediting…

> If we had a functioning congress, I wonder if we might end up with legislation that these things need to be watermarked or otherwise made identifiable as AI generated..

Not a lawyer, but that reads as compelled speech to me. Materially misrepresenting an image would be libel, today, right?

Post reply on HN