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

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#741

Post by bananaflag »

makerofthings wrote: post #738
peepee1982 wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because code is fundamentally not a creative work the way art is. Code "just" has to be correct, even if that correctness has demanded to come up with ideas. And as a software developer you usually get paid a nice salary to write it, no matter if you're typing it yourself or generate it with an AI. Art can't be generated. We can only generate artefacts mimicking art styles. So far we have no AI generated images that…

I don’t think that’s completely true, there is an art to code beyond it just being correct. There are a great many correct implementations of a program, but only some of them are really beautiful as well. Most people don’t see the code or appreciate this, but the difference between correct and art is clear to me when I see it.

Code can be beautiful or ugly but that doesn't make it art.

Art is not just about beauty, it is about expressing the mind (feelings, experience etc) of the author. AI will never do that (except if it learns to express its own experiences, which would be art, but not something competing with human art; it would be like if we had contact with alien art).

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#742

Post by daniel_iversen »

pchangr wrote: post #702
daniel_iversen wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And it can be done in less "communist" ways; have countries' governments invest serious capital (even if they have to raise debt - they do anyway) in income producing assets related to AI, like large stakes in AI labs, building data centres etc.

From my understanding, the state or community owning the means of production (in this case, ai labs) is one of the central thesis of communism.

More like a sovereign wealth fund type of concept

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#743

Post by rasKqa »

lxgr wrote: post #696
maplethorpe wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I see properly argued positions, even if very anti-AI, hang around, but cheap tribalist takes usually get downvoted pretty quickly.

Cheap pro-AI comments don't get flagged though. You can repeat the same talking points forever:

- "Artists have always been exploited" (patently false since at least 1950, it was a symbiosis with the industry).

- "Humans have always done $X".

- "You are a Luddite."

- "This is inevitable."

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#744

Post by jeroenhd »

ACCount37 wrote: post #701
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 "people who made this possible" were getting their fair share, "a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it" would be about it for the artists. What makes the dataset valuable isn't that the image 0012992 in it is precious and irreplaceable. It's that the index goes to seven digits. Pre-training is very much a matter of scale - and scraping is merely the easiest way to get data at scale. People who co…

> A counterfactual world where artists were paid for AI training is one where an average artist is 5 cents richer, an average image generation AI performs 5% worse, and the bulk of extra data spending is captured by platforms selling stock photos and companies destructively digitizing physical media.

No, a counterfactual world where artists were paid for AI training wouldn't see commercially viable AI at all. A world which plenty of people would be more than happy to live in, mind you.

AI relies on mass piracy worth Googols of dollars if you count like you would the million dollar iPod, but because AI surprised the copyright industry, it's now too late to enforce copyright like that.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#746

Post by jeroenhd »

peepee1982 wrote: post #732
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 code is fundamentally not a creative work the way art is. Code "just" has to be correct, even if that correctness has demanded to come up with ideas. And as a software developer you usually get paid a nice salary to write it, no matter if you're typing it yourself or generate it with an AI. Art can't be generated. We can only generate artefacts mimicking art styles. So far we have no AI generated images that…

Art can be generated perfectly fine. Only artists and connoisseurs care about details and art style. Most art is purchased by a business, and that business just wants a picture of a woman being happy next to a cake that looks similar enough to the other corporate pictures.

Code can be art the same way writing can be. There's a big difference between artistic code and business code, the same way there's a big difference between poetry and a comment chain on hacker news.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#747

Post by uxcolumbo »

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.

So what's the solution? Not using AI?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#748

Post by jeroenhd »

lionkor wrote: post #692
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.

I have an alternative! Regulation. A government can simply regulate what is and isn't legal, and in most of the world, that's been what governments do. I'm sure a country like the US, which is filled with lawyers, can come up with a couple laws, and find some goons to enforce it, that cannot possibly be that hard when other countries can figure it out too.

The EU already has AI regulation and it's about as effective as you'd think it would be.

The AI industry is built on mass piracy and copyright violations, regulation isn't going to make it go away or even comply any time soon.

We have laws banning technology that can be used to produce generative images of someone that look like them with their clothes off. The result wasn't fixing generative AI (we don't know how to actually control that kind of thing because it's almost impossible to manually tweak a machine learning model), but to add a bunch of input and output filters that'll pass the test for most regulators checking compliance.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#749

Post by ProfessorZoom »

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.

Dune movie was inspired by Apocalypse Now, with even several shots being exact copies, but Francis Ford Coppola isn't getting a penny!

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#750

Post by rasKqa »

arghwhat wrote: post #719
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.

This is, in my opinion, attempting to say the right thing with entirely the wrong perspective: The people you say are getting "shafted" always got shafted. Their works are the inspiration for all artists and people who lay their eyes on it - maybe they got paid when they made the work, maybe they managed to sell it, but probably not. And still, other artists (and machines) will use remember and be inspired by it, som…

Children can draw without ever having been to an art gallery. The IP laundromats need the entire stolen corpus of human labor. The latter is clearly an infringing derivative work.

It will be true no matter who many bribes those who have never created anything pay to Marsha Blackburn (who miraculously reversed her AI skepticism).

I wonder how many threats of being primaried have been issued by the uncreative technocrat thieves.

Post reply on HN