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

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#781

Post by BoxOfRain »

jeroenhd wrote: post #744
ACCount37 wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> but because AI surprised the copyright industry, it's now too late to enforce copyright like that.

I think I've got whiplash from the way a lot of the tech scene has gone from 'IP troll outfits are malicious actors who make everything worse for everyone else' to 'IP troll outfits are an ethical and effective solution to exploitation in the AI industry'.

I'm not a huge fan of much of the generative AI industry, but is IP maximalism really the answer here? Before 2022 most of us would have agreed that DRM is generally a scourge for example, and the 'copyright industry' are a big part of pushing for the end of general-purpose computing in favour of DRM-controlled appliances. Personally I'd rather go in the opposite direction, copyright lasts for exactly thirty years and after that a work enters the public domain without exception, and I'd weaken anti-circumvention laws too.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#782

Post by Lucasoato »

Ladioss wrote: post #603
Lucasoato wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this even better than Chinese models? I suppose they focus much more on that aspect, simply because their training data might include many more examples of Chinese text.

Maybe they just use Qwen Image under the hood ;p

It wouldn’t surprise me at this point ahaha

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#783

Post by netruk44 »

maplethorpe wrote: post #777
mrspuratic wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I tried setting showdead=yes but two comments I remember seeing earlier today (as replies to one of my comments) are still gone. Does anyone what else might have happened to them?

Maybe the posters might have deleted the comments themselves?

I often post comments on HN, just to delete them 5 minutes later when I realize I don’t care to deal with the replies I’ll eventually get.

You have to be quick because if someone does reply, you can no longer delete your message.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#784

Post by ben_w »

jeroenhd wrote: post #744
ACCount37 wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

You recon Disney and Shutterstock don't have enough images to make commercially viable AI?

Or for that matter, Facebook? Even just for photorealistic images from, you know, all the photos people upload.

> 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.

Not that I disagree that people use everything they can get their hands on for marginal improvements, they obviously do, but the copyright industry being "surprised" is the default state of affairs for infringement, and "piracy" is the wrong word because that's a law and the judges so far have ruled that training isn't itself a copyright offence, while also affirming that it is possible to commit a copyright offence by pirating training data.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#785

Post by uxcolumbo »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #771
uxcolumbo wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's the solution? Not using AI?

Exactly this. You don't need it. Nobody does.

Yeah not a realistic scenario. AI is immensely useful and if applied correctly will help humanity.

The question is how do you reign in the robber barons, who just want to use AI to maintain their status quo and extract more and more profit from the system.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#786

Post by dwayne_dibley »

tsimionescu wrote: post #774
arghwhat wrote: post #719

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…

You're ignoring the biggest problem here: the concentration and extraction of wealth. The sum total of human artists were previously getting those billions of dollars, and now it's OpenAI (and Anthropic, and Google, and Microsoft, and maybe a handful of other players) getting it. Now, maybe it actually used to be hundreds of millions of dollars, and they've grown it to billions, and maybe they deserve some of that -…

The same issue applies to fastfood, coffee chains and taxi services. Capitalism.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#787

Post by ndriscoll »

s4i wrote: post #546
ndriscoll wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and she gets that, but at some point she completely memorizes the stories. She also asks if we can get new books at the store, but they don't make 'em that fast.

Isn’t that also a valuable life lesson that some topics/resources are scarce and at some point you need to do something else?

Sure, and she already got that lesson when there literally weren't more. Then she got another lesson: we can just make our own. In fact that may be one of the most important lessons to learn: you have agency, and you can use the tools you have as accelerants to better yourself, further increasing your agency.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#788

Post by cindyllm »

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…

[dead]

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#789

Post by heddycrow »

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.

There's a lot of detail lost when you collapse towards "everyone". Some portion of that set is not the same as the other part of it, but both make sounds.

People get up in arms according to what seems acceptable to be complaining about. Voices get amplified similarly.

And sometimes the people complaining about AI in art are completely different people from those that might do so about code.

It is the same thing. There is no good excuse to claim a defense or objection for one group of people and not apply that fairly to others. All that "is it art" discussion is just noise.

But then again maybe artists feel more vulnerable than coders. People generally don't hire coders for their output but more for what their output will do. Coders create and maintain a money printer. A successful artist will create an output that immediately becomes scarce and in-demand; the output is the money and the artist then becomes the money printer. It's not hard to see that one is under more immediate threat than the other. So they scream louder.

Just a bunch of thoughts. In good faith, take from it what you will.

Post reply on HN