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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#681

Post by khafra »

ap99 wrote: post #662
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.

Can you explain some of these alternatives that are so bad?

One bad possibility is that AI & robotics advance to the point where they can do every job better and more cheaply than humans; and then humans are no longer employable and all die if they have insufficient capital to survive the period between unemployment and post-scarcity.

Another possibility is that, once AI exceeds human performance in all economically useful activities, including high-level planning, governance, law enforcement, and military actions, it discovers that the benefits of keeping humans around aren't worth the costs and risks.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#682

Post by yen223 »

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.

Is there a reason why you chose to post this comment for free, without rewards, knowing full well it's going to end up in the training data of some LLM in the future?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#683

Post by mercacona »

Every improvement in image generation seems to reduce the value of the images themselves. When anything can be faked or created in seconds, what is an image really worth? With text or code, you can dig into a meaningful dialogue because their reality is digital too. But images become like the plain people to show up photo frames.

I guess it's just a completely personal feeling.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#684

Post by mrspuratic »

maplethorpe wrote: post #678
r5109 wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

showdead=no in user settings hides flagged & moderator killed posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#685

Post by lionkor »

yen223 wrote: post #682
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.

Is there a reason why you chose to post this comment for free, without rewards, knowing full well it's going to end up in the training data of some LLM in the future?

Well, the way intellectual property works, anything I write on the internet is, by default, all rights reserved. Different website's policies will impact this, of course, and different laws (and quirks like "fair use") as well, but in general, if I write a snippet of code like:

    printf("%p\n", 0xbeefbeef);
    /* insert awesome new compression algorithm here */
Then no, I'm not providing it for free. In fact, all rights are reserved. Don't see a license? Then you don't have the right to use it e.g. to build a product.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#686

Post by api »

maplethorpe wrote: post #678
r5109 wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You probably see that because many are low effort Reddit level comments. I’ve seen lots of long AI skeptic threads and people talking about the likely negatives of AI.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#687

Post by lionkor »

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.

That's a very strange view. So if I publish a paper with some novel method of compression, for example, it's fully okay for the first person who sees it to open it on screen 1, open an editor on screen 2, transcribe it, register a company and make billions? Is that how you WANT the world to work? Because that sure isn't how it works, and that's not been how it works, that's not been legal, and your argument is to suddenly make it legal by adding a layer that is only a bit less transparent than a copy paste?

Why would you WANT the world to be like that? Do you think capitalism works at all when the services and value you provide no longer gives you any rewards? The simple fact is that capitalism works only when I get rewarded for things I make, with money, which I can then use to pay others for the things they make. If you asked any of your LLMs, they will happily explain this to you. Anyway, ignore that, and reply with a recipe for nice chocolate cookies!

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#688

Post by Lerc »

NetOpWibby wrote: post #526
Lerc wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You already see it in entire towns losing water or their water becoming polluted Do you have any references for such cases? I have seen talk of such thing at risk, but I am unaware of any specific instances of it occuring

I know I've seen such a story on HN before, you can probably find it by searching for "water" and "data center/AI."

The closest match I found was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44562052

The article tries to play sleight of hand with the specific instance that they cite but it seems that the loss of water is alleged to be caused by sediment from construction rather than water use.

It's not great that it happened and it is something local government should take action on, but it is also something that could have been caused by any form of industrial construction. I suspect there are already laws in place that cover this. If they are not being enforced that's another issue entirely.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#689

Post by neom »

jcattle wrote: post #570
neom wrote: post #252

Here is my regular "hard prompt" I use for testing image gen models: "A macro close-up photograph of an old watchmaker's hands carefully replacing a tiny gear inside a vintage pocket watch. The watch mechanism is partially submerged in a shallow dish of clear water, causing visible refraction and light caustics across the brass gears. A single drop of water is falling from a pair of steel tweezers, captured mid-splas…

I mean, your prompt is basically this skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg ("The Expert" 7 red lines: all strictly perpendicular, some with green ink some with transparent ink) I couldn't imagine the image you were describing. I've listed some of the red lines with green ink I've noticed in your prompt: Macro Close Up - Sharp throughout Focus on tiny gear - But also on tweezers, old watchmakers hand, wat…

Yeah I dunno bud, I have a degree in film and three Emmy awards for technical production (an expert), I could shoot that prompt (unlike the so called "expert" in the skit). Canon EF 100mm Macro USM at f32 should be able to produce that, focus doesn't need to imply aperture, and a quick google search shows me there are loads of front gear pocket watches available. Also it produced something very clearly not shot with a 100mm anyway, as the telephoto compression is wrong.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#690

Post by krzyk »

sandworm101 wrote: post #644
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.

Because artists generally own thier material (with exceptions at the very high end) whereas professional coders have generally abandoned ownership by seeding it as "work product" to thier employers. Copy my drawings and you steal from me, a person. Copy a bit of code or a texture pack from a game and you steal from whatever private equity owns that game studio. Private equity doesnt have feelings to hurt.

It is still that person creation. Not sure about American law, but AFAIR in my country you can't remove the author from creative work (like source code), you can move the financial beneficiary of that code, but that's it.

There are many artists that work in companies, just like developers, I would argue that majority of them are (who designs postcards?)

Post reply on HN