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

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#671

Post by debazel »

henry-j wrote: post #484
debazel wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but eventually we should start flagging images with no source attribution as dangerous the way we flag non-https. Yes, lets make all images proprietary and locked behind big tech signatures. No more open source image editors or open hardware.

C2PA is actually an open protocol, à la SMTP. the whole spec is at https://spec.c2pa.org/ , available for anyone to implement.

The standard itself being open is irrelevant. I'm not sure why this is always brought up for attestation standards. It is fundamentally impossible to trust the signature from open-source software or hardware, so a signature from open-source software is essentially the same as no signature.

The need for a trusted entity is even mentioned in your specification under the "attestation" section: https://spec.c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/1.4/atte...

So now, if we were to start marking all images that do not have a signature as "dangerous", you would have effectively created an enforcement mechanism in which the whole pipeline, from taking a photo to editing to publishing, can only be done with proprietary software and hardware.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#673

Post by tgv »

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.

> except you get shafted

That's the point, isn't it? Creating images via AI offers nothing to society. Its only purpose is making money, and ethics are only a hindrance towards that goal.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#674

Post by odiroot »

master-lincoln wrote: post #631
barnabee wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seize the means of production!

Tokens to the people!

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#675

Post by SlinkyOnStairs »

ap99 wrote: post #661
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 I see art and get inspired by it, then paint my own thing and make millions do I owe my inspiration money?

If you end up creating something sufficiently similar, yes in fact you do. Or rather, you have done a copyright infringement and retroactive payment may be one of the remedies.

This also applies to AI, just worse because:

A) AI is not a human brain, and pretending that the process of human authorship is the same as AI is either a massive misunderstanding of the mechanics and architecture of these systems, or plain disingenuous nonsense.

B) AI has no capability of original thought. Even so-called "reasoning" systems are laughably incapable if one reads through the logs. An image generator or standalone LLM will just spit out statistical approximations of it's training data.

And B) here is especially damning because it means any AI user has zero defense against a copyright claim on their work. This creates enormous legal risks.

The model for copyright trolling is trivial. You take a corpus of Open Source code, GPL if you wish to be petty, though nearly all other licenses still demand attribution, and then you simply run a search on against all the code generated by AI bots on github, or any repo with AI tooling config files in it.

Won't be long before the FSF does something similar.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#677

Post by freakynit »

barnabee wrote: post #630
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.

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.

"socialise ownership and control" ... this always ends up with just one person owning(not literally) it, through sheer misuse of political power.

As far as I can see as of now, there is no "realistic" way out. It's a problem of human nature... People are corrupt, people with authority are more corrupt, and people with money and authority, even more. Come intelligent and cheaply mass-produceable robots, and we'll have a new, 4th level spinup too that will be worse than the first 3, combined.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#678

Post by maplethorpe »

r5109 wrote: post #651
sp_c wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

I've seen anti-AI comments here disappear within minutes of posting. I'm honestly surprised to see one at the top of this thread.

What causes comments to disappear? Is that what flagging does?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#679

Post by digdugdirk »

barnabee wrote: post #630
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.

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.

I've been thinking of ways to legally structure an Intellectual Property Cooperative, which is the only way I can think of to solve the current exploitive digital economic system.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#680

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN