Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT Images 2.5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 474 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#211

Post by kraftman »

recitedropper wrote: post #72
vlyan wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would you like a carbon receipt for your video gaems, netflix, and reddit sessions?

Someone needs to name this fallacy. The existence of existing harmful norms does not, ex ante, justify introducing additional harmful norms. I propose naming it the "GenAI Defender Fallacy". Separately--yes, I would love carbon receipts for everything. Such a system would be fascinating and do real good in this world.

What's the goal of complaining about it though? What's more likely, you persuade people to stop all of these habits that use electricity that burns carbon, or you convert the electricity supply to renewables?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#213

Post by gf000 »

woodgala wrote: post #135
LinXitoW wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad examples. Use meat consumption. It will blow any other kind of "non-essential" resource use out of the water, on ALL fronts. It's really hard to believe that people care about the personal impact of their decisions, when it's only ever other peoples decisions that get talked about.

Jeez where did the vegan touch you?

Care to refute the actual numbers?

No one was talking about the ethical part (which you may or may not agree with). Carbon footprint is an actually measurable quantity that we can compare - what's your problem?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#214

Post by rustystump »

bluegatty wrote: post #144
conradludgate wrote: post #18

[flagged]

This an oddly cynical comment, that I think says more about the observer than the observed. People are having fun making images. Like they do all sorts of things on the web. Making an image is as simple as visiting a web-page. That's it.

this is an oddly dismissive comment that says more about the commenter then what is commented on.

generating an ai image is vastly more costly than loading a webpage…but still not that costly compared to most other things.

this is depressing in the same way content slop or fyp feeds are fun.

if you want a silly pic with ur kids, just pay someone on fiver. it will be only slightly more expensive and likely far more exciting for kids as they have to wait for the dopamine hit.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#215

Post by arjie »

None of the improvements are particularly useful for my principal use-case. Creating infographics to visualize how things interact and so on. But it’s always nice to see improvement here.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#216

Post by magicalist »

visarga wrote: post #113
embedding-shape wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that was parents point, that currently they're using so shitty AI generated logos, that even if we despise that as a concept, at least better models output slightly less sloppy shit. But re-reading it, I'm not sure that was the right initial reading.

I am wondering if in 2-3 years AI will be heads and shoulders above us in both images and text. Then will we continue to see the slop accusations? Maybe its slop is better than most of our work.

> Then will we continue to see the slop accusations?

If it doesn't look like the food you're about to purchase, yes? Why is this even a question in this context.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#217

Post by bko »

ks2048 wrote: post #208
bko wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you care what your kebab shop uses for their menus? These people are trying to run a business. If this can allow them to clearly communicate prices in a well designed pleasant way, it's great. Why must they slave away in design and technology or pay someone to do it for them? I think it's great

If I eat at a restaurant and that restaurant has images of their food, I want those to be “real images” of what they will bring me when I pay. Otherwise it’s misleading.

I don't think I've ever eaten at a restaurant with real images of their food, pre or post AI.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#218

Post by 100percentjake »

mattbettinson wrote: post #3

I hope my local kebab shops switch to this for their signs.

One of my locally owned fried rice places doodled a simple pencil cartoon of them cooking fried rice to satisfy their evil landlord and it has cascaded into a series of mildly unhinged pencil cartoon doodles every few days on Facebook. It is an incredibly refreshing break from the local food/eats FB groups being utterly flooded with identical looking slop posters and has earned my business several times. Also it's just... incredibly in-touch marketing in general.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#219

Post by bluegatty »

emsign wrote: post #159
bluegatty wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This an oddly cynical comment, that I think says more about the observer than the observed. People are having fun making images. Like they do all sorts of things on the web. Making an image is as simple as visiting a web-page. That's it.

[flagged]

The weirdly narrow and cynical purview of your example proves my point.

It echos sentiments of painters, intellectuals and odd religious moralists and other rabble rousers who spent decades raving against 'tHe eVIL pHoToGRaPH' in late 19th and early 20t century.

People can now make more expressive images than they could before, which is generally a good thing.

Of course, people could always use new technology for negative purposes - and - people have been using Photoshop for decades already to make 'fake nudes' - this is not a new phenomenon.

None of this is even a very big deal. We can make images now much more easily, that's it.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#220

Post by MonkeyIsNull »

bahmboo wrote: post #109
conradludgate wrote: post #18

[flagged]

Groan. Your comment is the most depressing thing I've read today. What a sad way to look at the world. People are doing stuff and having fun. Meanwhile a whole sub-cult is sucking from the doom straw and mumbling carbon, water, greed, blah. The sport of Golf consumes far more resources than any AI data center.

Wow, just a quick check .... it appears you are correct.

  Golf: ~531 billion gal/year
  Data centers: ~17 billion gal/year
  Golf ≈ 31× as much
Indirect Water footprint via Electricity Usage:

  Golf: ~500–531B gallons
  Data centers including electricity: ~228B gallons
Post reply on HN