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

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#651

Post by r5109 »

sp_c wrote: post #636
lionkor wrote: post #613

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.

I don't understand why everyone is all up and arms about Images / Art being generated by AI, but when it comes to code... well who cares? The people who made all the code training data are also getting nothing! Potentially the one difference is that developers invented this and screwed themselves, whereas artists had nothing to do with AI.

Rob Pike cares. In other places apart from HN there is more resistance. Perceived lack of resistance has multiple reasons:

- Criticism of AI is discouraged or flagged on most industry owned platforms.

- The loudest pro-AI software engineers work for companies that financially benefit from AI.

- Many are silent because they fear reprisals.

- Many software engineers lack agency and prefer to sit back and understand what is happening instead of shaping what is happening.

- Many software engineers are politically naive and easily exploited.

Artists have a broader view and are often not employed by the perpetrators of the theft.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#652

Post by user34283 »

squidsoup wrote: post #238

Are camera manufacturers working on signed images? That seems like the only way our trust in any digital media doesn't collapse entirely.

Yes, I think they have been for years. C2PA Content Credentials are supported in cameras and some phones already today.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#653

Post by deepvibrations »

bradley13 wrote: post #642
lionkor wrote: post #613

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.

If you put stuff on the internet, people (and machines) can see it. How do you think human artists learn? By looking at other people's artwork. AI can do exactly the same thing. As for code: All of my code is open source. I don't care if people (or machines) learn from it. In fact, as a teacher, I sincerely hope that they do! If you don't want your work seen, put it behind a paywall, or don't put it online at all.

Not a fair comparison... A model can ingest a countless number works in day and reproduce stylistic fingerprints on demand, at zero marginal cost. How are the people it learned from meant to compete with that?

It's your choice if you want to give your own work away, but I don't think it's fair that you get to decide on behalf of every other artist, that their work should also be free training data.

Do you want all musicians and artists to put their work behind paywalls? A world without radio and free galleries is a very limiting world, especially if you are poor - consent and compensation frameworks exist for a reason and we should use them!

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#655

Post by pawelduda »

lionkor wrote: post #613

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.

People who provided training material for AI images, received payment in likes and shares

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#656

Post by lwhi »

pawelduda wrote: post #655
lionkor wrote: post #613

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.

People who provided training material for AI images, received payment in likes and shares

Is this satire?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#657

Post by lwhi »

sp_c wrote: post #636
lionkor wrote: post #613

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.

I don't understand why everyone is all up and arms about Images / Art being generated by AI, but when it comes to code... well who cares? The people who made all the code training data are also getting nothing! Potentially the one difference is that developers invented this and screwed themselves, whereas artists had nothing to do with AI.

The same developers who fed the machine, didn't make the machine.

Your comparison is incorrect.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#659

Post by lwhi »

bradley13 wrote: post #642
lionkor wrote: post #613

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.

If you put stuff on the internet, people (and machines) can see it. How do you think human artists learn? By looking at other people's artwork. AI can do exactly the same thing. As for code: All of my code is open source. I don't care if people (or machines) learn from it. In fact, as a teacher, I sincerely hope that they do! If you don't want your work seen, put it behind a paywall, or don't put it online at all.

A very basic point of view. If you can't see how you're being disingenuous, there's no point in having a conversation with you.
Post reply on HN