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

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#841

Post by conception »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #824
Cyan488 wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've definitely passed the point where discerning between real and AI images is impossible, even for a very detail-oriented eye.

It's not really a new problem though, as image forgery was a thing ages ago; if there weren't laws or measures taken against photoshopped images or instagram filters or faceapp things then, why would there be laws or measures taken against AI generated images now? Granted, a nontrivial difference is that the barrier to entry is lower; photo editing is something that requires active effort and learning.

Absolutism isn’t very useful. Scale and magnitude always need to be considered. “I can buy plates with uranium in them, why can’t I enrich it at scale for my own personal use???” “Humans have been hunting for thousands of years. Why can’t i deploy automated sentry machine guns at my property line??”

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#842

Post by Levitz »

ACCount37 wrote: post #791
BoxOfRain wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"Copyright" is, frankly, just an excuse people who hate AI latch onto. Many of the people who rally against AI now used to rally against Napster being prosecuted by RIAA and the Big Mouse renewing copyright expiration dates once again. It's not that they suddenly gained an appreciation for the copyright law. It's that they found something they hate more than the big record label megacorps - and copyright became a too…

Same thing with the water arguments, or pollution in general. It's not about those having any weight, it's about being against AI first and building arguments against it second.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#844

Post by tempaccount5050 »

parasti wrote: post #554

A great technical achievement, for sure, but this is kind of the moment where it enters uncanny valley to me. The promo reel on the website makes it feel like humans doing incredible things (background music intentionally evokes that emotion), but it's a slideshow of computer generatated images attempting to replicate the amazing things that humans do. It's just crazy to look at those images and have to consciously r…

Yep. Just like motion pictures. Why, it's just a facsimile! People were meant to see performances by real people. These motion pictures fool your eye and surely will unravel the very fabric of civilized society! No longer shall the thespian be well employed! And the minds of the children will lay in ruins from such filth!

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#845

Post by 7tflutter7 »

tgv wrote: post #673
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.

'I dislike AI, therefore it has no value to anyone.' Who knew the international unit of truth was your feelings?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#846

Post by avgDev »

niek_pas wrote: post #622
overgard wrote: post #216

Pretty mixed feelings on this. From the page at least, the images are very good. I'd find it hard to know that they're AI. Which I think is a problem. If we had a functioning congress, I wonder if we might end up with legislation that these things need to be watermarked or otherwise made identifiable as AI generated.. I also don't like that these things are trained on specific artist's styles without really crediting…

Maybe I'm stupid and naive but I just don't really see how any of this is _fundamentally_ different from Photoshop. Trusting the images you're looking at on the internet has been impossible for a long time. That's why we have institutions and social relations we place trust in instead.

It makes it more accessible. The amount of people who can prompt chatGPT is significantly higher than the amount of people who can edit a photo in photoshop and make it perfect.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#847

Post by bonoboTP »

bamboozled wrote: post #637
amunozo wrote: post #51

This is not as exciting as previous models were, but it is incredibly good. I am starting to think that expressing thoughts in words clearly is probably the most important and general skill of the future.

In other words, communication is an important skill.

And having thoughts to communicate.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#848

Post by wordpad »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #514
simonw wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just got a much better version using this command instead, which uses the maximum image size according to https://github.com/openai/openai-cookbook/blob/main/examples... OPENAI_API_KEY="$(llm keys get openai)" \ uv run 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/simonw/tools/refs/heads/main/python/openai_image.py' \ -m gpt-image-2 \ "Do a where's Waldo style image but it's where is the raccoon holding a ham radio" \ --quali…

Cost me https://elsrc.com/elsrc/waldo/wojak.jpg And this medium quality, high resolution https://elsrc.com/elsrc/waldo/10_wojaks.jpg was 13cents p.s. aaaand that's soft launch my SaaS above, you can replace wojak.jpg with anything you want and it will paint that. It's basically appending to prompt defined by elsrc's dashboard. Hopefully a more sane way to manage genai content. Be gentle to my server, hn!

That's way more than 10, around 50

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#849

Post by runarberg »

WarmWash wrote: post #811
tsimionescu wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 -…

That's also the wrong framing AI Labs are getting a tiny cut of the hundreds saved by not hiring an artist. So regular people save hundreds, the labs get a few dollars, and the artists get nothing. The artists are still losing, but it's regular people, especially the least able, who are winning. The coffee shop isn't cutting OAI a $300 check for doing their spring menu. They are pocketing $295 and paying OAI $5.

No. The coffee shop who isn’t paying an artist $300 is gonna get negative reviews and loose customers and money from their bad business decision[1]. I know I would think twice about ordering at a café which uses AI in their marketing, and I am not the only one.

The coffee shop who cannot afford the $300 for an artist and homebrews their design in Microsoft Word is still doing just as before, the coffee shop which can afford it and still pays an artist is still doing fine. The coffee shop which is paying openAI $5 for stolen art, gets to look as cheap as they are.

1: https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/santa-cruz-restaurant-ai...

Post reply on HN