[dead]
ChatGPT Images 2.0
391–400 of 1001 posts
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sig…
Can't the expression come from the person prompting the AI and sometimes taking hours inpainting or tweaking the prompt to try get the exact image / expression they had in their mind? A good use I've found is to be able to make scenes from a dream you had into an image. If that's not an expression of something then I'm not sure anything is.
Notably, this process of struggle is meant to go away, to make room for instant satisfaction. This is really about some kind of expression consumerism. (And what will be lost along the way is meaning.)
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#393[dead]
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#394Earlier 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?
If it means anything, I have a 1990 Almanac from an old encyclopedia that warns the exact same thing about digital photo manipulation. I don't think it really matters at this point
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#395Earlier 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.
If you scroll far enough down the linked page, you’ll see they’re knocking off poor handwriting too!
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#396Sam Altman in his meeting with Tim Cook two and a half years ago give me money. I think it’ll take $150 billion dollars, Tim Cook well here’s what we’re going to do, this is what I think it’s worth…
Later Google tried the same thing, Apple we will give you a $1 billion dollar a year refund, what’s changed in two and a half years?
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just got a much better version using this command instead, which uses the maximum image size according to https://github.com/openai/openai-cookbook/blob/main/examples... OPENAI_API_KEY="$(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…
The faces...that's nice that it turned a kid's book into an abomination
By image generation standards this is a ridiculously good result. No surprise that people instantly find the new limits, but they are new limits.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#398> 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…
> What else? I used to have an assistant make little index-card sized agendas for gettogethers when folks were in town or I was organising a holiday or offsite. They used to be physical; now it's a cute thing I can text around so everyone knows when they should be up by (and by when, if they've slept in, they can go back to bed). AI has been good at making these. They don't need to be works of art, just cute and sill…
I'm not seeing how it takes more than 5 minutes to type up an itinerary. If you want to make it cute and silly, just change up the font and color and add some clip art.
If this is the best use case that exists for AI image generation, I'm only further convinced the tech is at best largely useless.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#399> 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…
While I agree with you, hacker news audience is not in the middle of the bell curve. I get this sounds elitist - but tremendous percentage of population is happily and eagerly engaging with fake religious images, funny AI videos, horrible AI memes, etc. Trying to mention that this video of puppy is completely AI generated results in vicious defense and mansplaining of why this video is totally real (I love it when vi…
I recently shoulder-surfed a family member scrolling away on their social media feed, and every single image was obvious AI slop. But it didn't matter. She loved every single one, watched videos all the way through, liked and commented on them... just total zombie-consumption mode and it was all 100% AI generated. I've tried in the past pointing out that it's all AI generated and nothing is real, and they simply don't care. People are just pac-man gobbling up "content". It's pretty sad/scary.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#400I'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…
Like... this has things that AI will seemingly always be terrible at? At some point the level of detail is utter garbo and always will be. An artist who was thoughtful could have some mistakes but someone who put that much time into a drawing wouldn't have: - Nightmarish screaming faces on most people - A sign that points seemingly both directions, or the incorrect one for a lake and a first AID tent that doesn't exi…
AI will seemingly always be ...
You do realize that the whole image generation field is barely 10 years old?
I remember how I was able to generate mnist digits for the first time about 10 years ago - that seemed almost like magic!