Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT Images 2.0

openai.com

761–770 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

banana Pro gets the logic and punts on the art; gpt-2-image gets the art and punts on the logic. Feels like instruction-following and creativity sit on opposite ends of the same slider.

This feels incredibly AI generated

The random accusations of AI generated comments are the most annoying part of the unfolding AI dystopia.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#762
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I noticed that just now, but too late to delete the comment :p

You had a meta problem, and three, in total: find the raccoon, find the umbrella, find the right link in the comments.

To find Waldo you must first create the Universe.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#763

The image of the messy desktop with the ASCII art is so impressive - the text renders, the date is consistent, it actually generated ASCII art in "ChatGPT", etc. I was skeptical that it was cherry-picked but was able to generate something very similar and then edit particular parts on the desktop (i.e. fixing content in the browser window and making the ASCII dog "more dog like"). It's honestly astounding, to me at l…

The periodic table in the "Create Everything At Once" collage is not so impressive.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Because artists generally own thier material (with exceptions at the very high end) This has not been generally true IME. It follows the same pattern as code quite often. When you pay an artist for their work, many times you also acquire copyright for it. For example if you hire someone to build you a company logo, or art for your website, etc the paying company owns it, not the artist. In-house/employee artists ar…

That is a rarified high end, commissioned artists hired for a paticular task. The vast majority of artists do art without tasking and sell copies, a situation where no copyright moves. I have a Bateman print on my wall. I own the print, not the image. Bateman has not licensed anything to anyone, just selling a physical copy. So scraping his work into AI land is more damaging to him than to a coder who has already signed away most copy/use rights via a FOSS license.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#765

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!

Wrong.

Creators/Writers of Dune paid money to watch Apocalypse Now.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#766

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 doesn’t bother me one bit.

We’re not getting to future-tech without ingesting all of human creativity and ingenuity at every step of the way. Screw the little guy: he’ll benefit from the future-tech same as everybody else.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ideal world would be one where, to train on art, you have to buy a license to that art. Sure, for most artists they would maybe put a low price tag, but that isn't the point. The point isn't about money. It's that copies were made, without license and without permission, and without any legal right to do so, of art, and then used to train a system which generates similar art. The first step, the copy, is illegal…

Ideal for whom? For society in general, I don’t think so.

I think you may be placing too much value on the output of these machines which use tons of energy, generate pollution (both noise and chemical), and generate output that's worse then what a human can do. We would be better off if these LLMs didn't exist.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#768

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.

It’s about time we shaft the gatekeepers of talent, and redistribute and socialize the means of art production.

The "Gatekeepers of talent" are generally people who worked very hard to hone a craft. Nothing is stopping you from working very hard to create something.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking of fair use, and that's the worst interpretation of it I've seen.

But it's true. You can do anything you want with private IP in private. It is the dissemination and distribution of IP that not yours that is the issue.

Not even remotely true. Fair use doesn't give you licence to pirate, unless you're a politically connected AI company.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#770
post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 technocra…

No they can’t just draw by themselves. It’s extremely bad and random.

Their teachers teach them from a very early age how to hold a carton, and how to draw.

Maybe some miraculous humans will reinvent all drawing of growing by themselves in the jungle, most people will not.

Source: I have kids.

Post reply on HN