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

231–240 of 474 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#231

Post by pfannkuchen »

EmiDub wrote: post #221
Alifatisk wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don’t think that’s whataboutism?

Maybe I’m confused, but I thought whataboutism was more like “you are saying I am doing X bad thing? What about Y bad thing you’re doing, let’s discuss that instead”.

It’s a deflection technique, not a check on logical consistency.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#232

Post by csallen »

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.

> The existence of existing harmful norms does not, ex ante, justify introducing additional harmful norms

The point isn't to justify anything.

It's to put things into perspective, and give people a more informed and holistic point of view, and then to ask them to reconsider their opinions in light of more information. There's nothing bad about that. In fact it's a good thing.

Especially in a world where people are so easily misled by others who cherrypick unexceptional statistics and then intentionally present them as exceptional in order to generate outrage, retweets, clicks, whatever.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#233

Post by Zambyte »

magicalist wrote: post #204
Zambyte wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being flawed isn't the issue. Everyone is flawed. The issue is blaming people for problems like environmental damage, while at the same time needlessly causing more damage yourself. The problem is being hypocritical. Some people are certainly more hypocritical than others.

I mean, I actively advocate for better fuel efficiency standards but also haven't entirely eliminated red meat from my diet. If I'm discussing fuel efficiency standards and you call me hypocritical, even if I granted that, it doesn't seem like a useful turn of the conversation for anyone unless it's a rhetorical move to change the topic of conversation?

Advocating vs blaming. Blaming people for using inefficient vehicles when you eat red meat (assuming you eat enough red meat to have more of an impact than the fuel) is hypocritical. Advocating for better alternatives to inefficient vehicles while eating red meat is not hypocritical.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#234

Post by dude250711 »

VladVladikoff wrote: post #228
vgalin wrote: post #64

The introductory video is a bit... daring. Generating tattoos that clearly look AI-generated is not one of the use-cases I'd try to sell.

It hit me just now that people might actually getting tattooed with AI slop. That’s… depressing

Think on the bright side, it will be easier to judge them based on how they look, possibly saving you time and effort.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#236

Post by eclipticplane »

numlock86 wrote: post #127
AyanamiKaine wrote: post #12

Omg, I love how the first examples just show how easy you can fake things. Fake being at a party with your friends. Didn't make your bed, no problem, just fake it. The sad part is my mother would love "remixing" my old child photos of me.

> Omg, I love how the first examples just show how easy you can fake things. Fake being at a party with your friends. Didn't make your bed, no problem, just fake it. Well, that's like the entire point of social media anyway, isn't it? People there will _love_ this. Ugh ...

My secret hope is that this kills the influencer industry and gets things back to just ads. Just the ads happen to be fake people, instead of real people pretending to be ads.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#237

Post by xp84 »

alexk307 wrote: post #201
wolfy1993 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remind me what golf club comes close to the energy consumption of a data center? Or do you literally mean the entire sport of golf vs 1 data center?

I was curious and tried to come up with a crude estimate - all of the golf courses in the US use approximately the same amount of energy (mowing, fertilizer, etc) as one 1GW DC does.

K, but they're paying for that energy though. And the land and the building costs, etc. I really don't want to live in a country where the government just arbitrarily says "Oh, sorry we have 'enough' datacenters / Subway sandwich shops / golf courses / storage facilities so you aren't allowed to build one" -- even if it becomes a populist belief that they should.

The fact is, at this point there is so much demand for DC capacity that the prices are super high, and thus it's worth building them. Many people believe that it's a bubble or whatever. If they're right, well then a lot of people building DCs right now will lose their shirts. If they're wrong and the demand is sustained, DCs are exactly what we need to be building.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#238

Post by 0x70run »

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.

[dead]

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#239

Post by Rover222 »

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.

Yeah seriously, the cultural mindset is so damn kneejerk negative to everything right now. It's pathetic. This is an exciting time, and lots of good things are happening.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#240

Post by hmstx »

villish wrote: post #184
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.

I hate it because I hate having to look at these AI generated images. In fact I want an internet where I have to explicitly opt-in to see AI generated content in general.

I was watching a friend stream a dead game lately.

That game was developed before generating images became widespread, and sunset as that "art form" started really taking off (game-as-a-service... probably partly reverse engineered and retooled with AI too). So during its lifetime, it was pretty much AI free.

I remember having been seduced by that game's art style at the time. It wasn't "the usual guys with futuristic guns and armor", it had some stylization as well, nice color...

Watching the stream, it occurred to me that it was in fact artwork from "the days before", in a way I hadn't been hit with until that point, even as a returning artist looking at pre-AI works.

"People came up with the concepts and developed and rendered them themselves", I thought to myself. Not in a "oh look, floppy disks. How quaint!" way, either.

Weird feeling.

Post reply on HN