Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT Images 2.0

openai.com

621–630 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#621

So during my Nano Banana Pro experiments I wrote a very fun prompt that tests the ability for these image generation models to follow heuristics, but still requires domain knowledge and/or use of the search tool: Create a 8x8 contiguous grid of the Pokémon whose National Pokédex numbers correspond to the first 64 prime numbers. Include a black border between the subimages. You MUST obey ALL the FOLLOWING rules for th…

Just try a 23-sided plane convex polygon.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#622

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…

Maybe I'm stupid and naive but I just don't really see how any of this is _fundamentally_ different from Photoshop. Trusting the images you're looking at on the internet has been impossible for a long time. That's why we have institutions and social relations we place trust in instead.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. Diagrams are a type of visual communication, and not everyone is good at translating things to visual. I open an excalidraw with clear concepts in my head, but nothing comes out of it. I try C4 or flow diagrams, and I spend an excessive amount of time refactoring them to end up mediocre anyway. Not just me, I know MANY developers that are amazing at explaining things but are mind-blocked when drawing simp…

You have lack of practice and OCD if you’re constantly refactoring but “always end up mediocre”.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#624

So during my Nano Banana Pro experiments I wrote a very fun prompt that tests the ability for these image generation models to follow heuristics, but still requires domain knowledge and/or use of the search tool: Create a 8x8 contiguous grid of the Pokémon whose National Pokédex numbers correspond to the first 64 prime numbers. Include a black border between the subimages. You MUST obey ALL the FOLLOWING rules for th…

I do not think this is a good prompt or useful benchmark, but nonetheless, it seems to work better for me: https://chatgpt.com/share/69e88a94-ded8-8395-b5dc-abceb2f44d...

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#625

Why do all of the cartoons still look like that ? Genuinely asking.

That was my reaction as well. Either they have decided than LLMs have this "house style" for stylized 2D art and we should deal with it, or no amount of prompting can get rid of it.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#626
This is insanely good. But wow, prompting to get any one of these images is way more complicated than prompting Claude Code. There is a ton of vocabulary that comes with it relating to the camera, the lighting, the mood etc.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#627
post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it's worthless for yourself, it's worthless to me as a viewer. AI content is great for your own usage, but there is no point posting and distributing AI generation. I could have generated my own content, so just send the prompt rather than the output to save everyone time.

Maybe reread my comment. Would you not want to see a mount Everest sized Lego cat? Even if it were my cat? Again - your quip sounds good but when you think about it, it's flatly wrong.

This doesn't make sense, if I want to see a lego-cat slopimage I can just prompt a model myself (and have it be of my own cat). There's no reason for you to be involved in any part of that process, because the point of this stuff is that you are not doing anything.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#628
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.

Don’t blame the tools. Stalin, Mao and Hitler didn’t need AI.

That pro forma response grows oh so very tiresome.

For the nth time: scale, easiness, and access, matter. AI puts propaganda abilities far beyond the reach of those men in the hands of many more people. Do you not understand the difference between one man with a revolver and an army with machine guns? They are not the same.

Nowhere in my comment am I “blaming the tools”. I’ll ask you engage with the argument honestly instead of simply parroting what you already believe absent reading.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#630

Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.

A lot of people here aren't going to like it, but the only reasonable way out I can see is to eventually socialise ownership and control of AI.

I don't see an alternative that isn't really bad.

Post reply on HN