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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#901

Post by WarmWash »

runarberg wrote: post #875
WarmWash wrote: post #868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, just like every software company using AI is going to go under and every video game using AI will fail?

I am not sure what you mean. The AI backlash is real, and it has real and obvious effects in the real world, with written articles to prove it. If you are attempting here to shift the focus away from coffee shops (may I remind you, you were the one who brought that as an example) and into video games or software companies, I simply reject that attempt. That there exists a software company which uses AI in their produ…

I'm shifting the focus to the reality that exists outside of internet mobs.

99% of people don't recognize AI generated content, and don't particularly care enough to pixel scan every image they see.

You can death grip articles of AI art backlash, but they are all these hyper-narrow one off events. But reality is the general population doesn't really see it or care.[1]

1.https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2026/04/17/the-no-1...

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#902

Post by bigfishrunning »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #785
bigfishrunning wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> AI is immensely useful

Right up until you need to do something you can't plagiarize

> if applied correctly will help humanity.

It isn't and won't be. Its entire purpose is to plagiarize artists, writers, and programmers, and to slowly whittle away those professions as viable. When there are no engineers left, we'll go back to sticks and stones I guess.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#903

Post by GMoromisato »

vincnetas wrote: post #890
tempaccount5050 wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't bother you. Just enjoy stuff. It's ok to think computer art is pretty. It's not some kind of personal or societal moral failing.

well it is. what if you found out that your wife is actually a robot that you cant tell apart from real human. your real wife. well at least not by cutting her open. would you feel the same being with here?

That's not as bad as when I learned my wife is really just the product of cell division.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#904

Post by BeetleB »

arghwhat wrote: post #898
BeetleB wrote: post #864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The person (singular) that is actually getting "shafted" at each use is the artist you didn't hire to do the job of making your new work, because it is their skill that got replaced. 1% Yes, and 99% No. Over 99% of uses would not have resulted in hiring someone to do the work had these models not existed as you yourself acknowledge.

Yes, but this is a bit of an oversimplification. The "99%" tends to be either: 1. Pointless throwaway content which we can just ignore as a new source of noise, 2. Something that could have ended up being a $5 commission[^1] to a kid somewhere out there but now never will be. Those numbers are also a bit too aggressive - it's easy to miss what kind of gig work exist out there. PowerPoint as a service is a thing on Fi…

> The "99%" tends to be either: 1. Pointless throwaway content which we can just ignore as a new source of noise, 2. Something that could have ended up being a $5 commission[^1] to a kid somewhere out there but now never will be.

Or 3. Something I made and I actually use, but I would never have paid a kid $5 to do.

Yes, I know of Fiverr and similar sites. Even planned on using it once. Even know someone in another country who made side money from it. And yes, it does suck for them. But none of that changes the fact that well over 99% of uses are not depriving them of any money.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#905

Post by cubefox »

paradoxyl wrote: post #562
madrox wrote: post #202

This seems like a great time to mention C2PA, a specification for positively affirming image sources. OpenAI participates in this, and if I load an image I had AI generate in a C2PA Viewer it shows ChatGPT as the source. Bad actors can strip sources out so it's a normal image (that's why it's positive affirmation), but eventually we should start flagging images with no source attribution as dangerous the way we flag…

What a dystopian, pro-tyranny ask. Horrifying.

To ask for verification whether a photo is real or fake?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#906

Post by GMoromisato »

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…

I get this attitude--I really do. But I think the world moves on, and our children are not going to think this is even slightly strange. As always, it's us old-timers who have the hardest time with change.

I also think this is "art" in service of commerce. This is OpenAI advertising their goods using art/design/writing. That's no different than cereal companies using Elmer's glue instead of milk for their photoshoots. I don't have a high-bar for that kind of "art".

The good news is that the cutting edge of art will (for a while longer) still be a human domain. The more popular these models become, the more of their images we see in our lives, the more we will value things that look different.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#907

Post by sdwr »

vincentbuilds wrote: post #557
minimaxir wrote: post #234

So during my Nano Banana Pro experiments I wrote a very fun prompt that tests the ability for these image generation models to follow heuristics, but still requires domain knowledge and/or use of the search tool: Create a 8x8 contiguous grid of the Pokémon whose National Pokédex numbers correspond to the first 64 prime numbers. Include a black border between the subimages. You MUST obey ALL the FOLLOWING rules for th…

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.

Yeah it's fascinating to have an alternate source for intelligence, feels like a mental Rosetta Stone

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#908

Post by rnjesus »

vincnetas wrote: post #890
tempaccount5050 wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't bother you. Just enjoy stuff. It's ok to think computer art is pretty. It's not some kind of personal or societal moral failing.

well it is. what if you found out that your wife is actually a robot that you cant tell apart from real human. your real wife. well at least not by cutting her open. would you feel the same being with here?

where can i buy one of these robot wives?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#909

Post by JumpCrisscross »

breezybottom wrote: post #501
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not seeing how it takes more than 5 minutes to type up an itinerary Because I’ll then spend hours playing with the typography (because it’s fun) and making it look like whatever design style I’ve most recently read about (again, because it’s fun) and then fighting Word or Latex because I don’t actually know what I’m doing (less fun). Outsourcing it is the right move, particularly if someone else is handling request…

You might not be able to tell how bad the AI slop looks, but I guarantee some of your friends can. AI is awful at maps and diagrams.

I’m not giving my friends AI maps and diagrams. And yes, they don’t look great. But they work. If I want to communicate something spatial, I can spend an hour in R or five minutes in Claude. The point is to communicate that information, and for a quick task, AI means the other person gets a map versus block of text they have to reason through.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#910

Post by davemp »

ACCount37 wrote: post #721
lionkor wrote: post #705

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…

"Without any legal right to do so" is for the courts to decide. And so far, the courts are very much not deciding the way you want them to. "Fair use" counters "without license and without permission" hard. The argument that training AI on scraped data is "fair use" and the resulting model outputs are "transformative works" has held up in courts. Anthropic got dinged for downloading pirated books, but not for throwin…

> The argument that training AI on scraped data is "fair use" and the resulting model outputs are "transformative works" has held up in courts.

Nope. Nope. Nope. That has explicitly not been ruled on yet. Transformative means that you don't need a fair use defense. Anthropic has only gotten away with their outputs being called transformative so far because they put a dubiously effective filter in front to block the most egregious infringing outputs. No one has actually challenged this afaik.

Post reply on HN