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

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#571

Post by user34283 »

____tom____ wrote: post #44

No mention of modifying existing images, which is more important than anything they mentioned. I think we all know the feeling of getting an image that is ok, but needs a few modifications, and being absolutely unable to get the changes made. It either keeps coming up with the same image, or gives you a completely new take on the image with fresh problems. Anyone know if modification of existing images is any better?…

It's the first thing I tried, because Nano Banana 2 deteriorates the output with each turn, becoming unusable with just a few edits.

ChatGPT Images 2.0 made it unusable at the first turn. At least in the ChatGPT app editing a reference image absolutely destroyed the image quality. It perfectly extracted an illustration from the background, but in the process basically turned it from a crisp digital illustration into a blurry, low quality mess.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#572

Post by prmoustache »

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…

Funny how it can look convincing from far away but once you zoom in you find out most characters have a mix of leprosy and skin cancer.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#573

Post by camillomiller »

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?

Wow, do you hold a degree in false dichotomies?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#574

Post by jstanley »

adamhartenz wrote: post #429
echelon wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am starting to think that expressing thoughts in words clearly is probably the most important and general skill of the future. Without question. AI will be indistinguishable from having a team. Communicating clearly has always and will always mattered. This, however, is even stronger. Because you can program and use logic in your communications. We're going to collectively develop absolutely wild command over ins…

How can AI be the amazing thing you say it is, but also too stupid to understand unless you get really good at communicating. Wouldn't better AI just mean it understands your ramblings better?

It can't grab out information that isn't there. If your ramblings are ambiguous then it has to make a guess.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#575

Post by medlazik »

baalimago wrote: post #564

"Benchmarks" aside, do anyone actually use these image models for anything?

Look around? It's everywhere. Try talking to a graphic designer looking for a job theses days. Companies didn't wait for these tools to be good to start using them.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#576

Post by jcattle »

Can we talk about how jarring the announcement video is?

AI generated voice over, likely AI generated script (You see, this model isn't just generating images, it's thinking!). From what it looks like only the editing has some human touch to it?

It does this Apple style announcement which everyone is doing, but through the use of AI, at least for me, it falls right into the uncanny valley.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#577

Post by afro88 »

ajam1507 wrote: post #439
minimaxir wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the recency of that image, it is unlikely it is in the training data and therefore I would go with oversight.

The image is likely older than the article given this picture from over a year ago. https://www.instagram.com/p/DGQ01bzTwyo/

That's not the same picture

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#578

Post by dsrtslnd23 »

Melatonic wrote: post #68
ea016 wrote: post #13

Price comparison: GPT Image 2 Low : 1024×1024 $0.006 | 1024×1536 $0.005 | 1536×1024 $0.005 Medium : 1024×1024 $0.053 | 1024×1536 $0.041 | 1536×1024 $0.041 High : 1024×1024 $0.211 | 1024×1536 $0.165 | 1536×1024 $0.165 GPT Image 1 Low : 1024×1024 $0.011 | 1024×1536 $0.016 | 1536×1024 $0.016 Medium : 1024×1024 $0.042 | 1024×1536 $0.063 | 1536×1024 $0.063 High : 1024×1024 $0.167 | 1024×1536 $0.25 | 1536×1024 $0.25

Weird that they restrict the resolution so much. Does it fall apart with more detail (when zoomed in) or does the cost just skyrocket?

actually gpt-image-2 is VERY flexible with the resolution. You can use arbitrary resolution within the max pixel budget.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#579

Post by bayindirh »

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #345
bayindirh wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a plainly dishonest comparison. A single H200 does not need to run continuously for you to generate a dozen pictures. And then you immediately pivot to comparing the paint usage against "the grand scheme of things"- 700W is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

In fact it's pretty fair.

Many people think that when a piece of hardware is idle, its power consumption becomes irrelevant, and that's true for home appliances and personal computers.

However, the picture is pretty different for datacenter hardware.

Looking now, an idle V100 (I don't have an idle H200 at hand) uses 40 watts, at minimum. That's more than TDP of many, modern consumer laptops and systems. A MacBook Air uses 35W power supply to charge itself, and it charges pretty quickly even if it's under relatively high stress.

I want to clarify some more things. A modern GPU server houses 4-8 high end GPUs. This means 3KW to 5KW of maximum energy consumption per server. A single rack goes well around 75KW-100KW, and you house hundreds of these racks. So, we're talking about megawatts of energy consumption. CERN's main power line on the Swiss side had a capacity around 10MW, to put things in perspective.

Let's assume an H200 uses 60W energy when it's idle. This means ~500W of wasted energy per server for sitting around. If a complete rack is idle, it's 10KW. So you're wasting energy consumption of 3-5 houses just by sitting and doing nothing.

This computation only thinks about the GPU. Server hardware also adds around 40% to these numbers. Go figure. This is wasting a lot for cat pictures.

And, these "small" numbers add up to a lot.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#580

Post by codebolt »

Anyone test it out for generating 2D art for games? Getting nano banana to generate consistent sprite sheets was seemingly impossible last time i tried a few months ago.
Post reply on HN