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

221–230 of 473 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#221

Post by EmiDub »

Alifatisk wrote: post #103
recitedropper wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Someone needs to name this fallacy. Whataboutism?

Whataboutism isn’t a fallacy and is widely misused online.

If someone says “I think x should stop because of y”. It is a valid argumentative response to say “y also occurs with z, so should z also stop?”. It is argumentatively revealing either hypocrisy, or that the original imperative relies on additional, unstated arguments/assumptions/biases.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#222

Post by xp84 »

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]

> imagine being someone being blackmailed by photos created by ChatGPT Images

If anything, the fact that I know for a fact that I can, in 45 seconds, generate an image of any arbitrary person holding Solo cups at a party arm in arm with Vladimir Putin (to crib an idea from one of the demos) should make everyone less and less susceptible to blackmail in general - in fact, even if the source material is real! There was a time 40 years ago when a photograph's existence was considered proof of a fact - the existence of Photoshop-like tools made that into a weak proof, and the existence of genAI has made "a photograph" into a format that is known to be as malleable as a .txt file.

Whether we like that or not, no one will stop bad actors from attempting to abuse this technology, so democratizing its use does help people to understand how they work and make potential victims much less credulous.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#224

Post by hmstx »

timbaboon wrote: post #142
pelzatessa wrote: post #6

The "composite party photo", while impressive, shows that still the miniscule details are being lost, like the teeth structure of the guy in the middle or the fact that the guy on the left is holding the cup with three fingers. Wondering why they chose this edit for the showcase.

Haha yes, I immediately saw the fingers and was surprised 'cos I thought that was something they had "solved" by now

Exactly this. "All this progress and they're back to miscounted fingers again?!"

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#225

Post by raincole »

furyofantares wrote: post #106

allllll the way at the bottom > Pricing and availability > Images 2.5 is rolling out today to ChatGPT, ChatGPT Work, and Codex users across all tiers on desktop, mobile, and web. > GPT‑Image‑2.5 Sunburst and GPT‑Image‑2.5 Flare are available in the API. See pricing details here. and the link to the pricing details is a page where i am either too dumb to find the pricing details, or they don't exist

https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/pricing#image-tokens

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#226

Post by kranke155 »

conradludgate wrote: post #18

[flagged]

I know of entire media departments that went from - let’s hire an artist and see what they come up with to - let’s produce hundreds if not thousands of images to explore all possible ideas (and end up with something bland anyway).

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#227

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

> Arrange these flowers

What kind of person cares enough to buy flowers for an arrangement, but is uninterested in arranging them? What's next, will we buy music for our AI's to listen to? Food for them to eat?

There's a lot of drudgery that can be automated away, but this seems to be focused on automating the fun parts away.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#229

Post by dude250711 »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #51
Betelbuddy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they wanna loose customers...

Not OP but my guess is that they're already using bad AI images for their kebab business, and OP wants them to use better AI for their images (so they may actually lose fewer customers because the AI imagery isn't so awful)

The normier the user the crazier the pics.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#230

Post by bluegatty »

rustystump wrote: post #214
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.

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 ex…

"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 "

???

You mean to imply there's something 'more authentic' about paying $5 for a random Philippino guy to use Photoshop to mix-up some family photos with sticker overlays?

What are you even talking about?

On what level is that either more authentic, better for the environment, more novel ... of frankly better in any way?

That is 'not even an argument' - and so you're making my point for me:

People can now make images.

It's mostly for fun, some of it will be used professional, some Tweets will be a bit more visual - but that's it.

It's not going to change that much, and it's generally better on the whole for people to be able to create what they want.

People are putting this out of proportion.

Maybe I'm too old, but I've been around - this is not a big deal in the grand scheme.

And it's 'net slightly positive'.

Post reply on HN