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

281–290 of 471 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#281

Post by XenophileJKO »

Black616Angel wrote: post #164
XenophileJKO wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the complaint? That if I make pictures for a few years, let's say on average 1 a day.. it will equal a small errand of carbon? If anything now I feel LESS guilty about usage.

But 3 billion pictures per week is equivalent to 12.4 million miles or 639.6 million miles extra per year.* It's not about you. There are no 3 billion people each creating one picture per week. Its probably more like 10.000 assholes creating 2.5 billion pictures per week to satisfy some stupid online feed and the other users creating a picture per month on average. * if we trust the numbers in the other comment

I mean that in a big number..

It equals around 0.004% of actual driven miles if my estimates are right.

That is with an estimated ~270 billion miles vehicle miles every week (I put commercial in there.. about ~200 billion miles if you only include passenger vehicles.)

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#282

Post by ai_critic »

cobolcomesback wrote: post #256
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.

Yea, “fun”, sure. I’m sure none of those billions of images were used to lie, mislead, or cheat anyone. I’m sure none of those images were used to create fake news narratives, used in advertisements to bait people into buying fake products, or create misleading mockups of rental properties. Definitely not. Nevermind the fact that the examples in OpenAI’s blog post are examples of creating images that have no plausibl…

...making a kitten tangled up on a networking cabinet was fun.

Some of us find opportunities for the small joys that help offset the background radiation of despair.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#283

Post by squeegmeister »

MonkeyIsNull wrote: post #220
bahmboo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#284

Post by algoth1 »

conradludgate wrote: post #18

[flagged]

to be fair you need to create a dozen images to get a decent one. Many times i need to get to almost what i want using paint.net and hope chatgpt removes the aliasing/cleans up the pixel boundaries without messing anything up - i'm not complaining though, still faster and cleaner than photoshop -- when it works

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#285

Post by david-gpu »

teravor wrote: post #254
pfannkuchen wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> “you are saying I am doing X bad thing? What about Y bad thing you’re doing, let’s discuss that instead”. no one is generally expecting or even asking for "let’s discuss that instead". what they are doing is trying to point out that your lack of of care about Y implies that you never actually cared about X in the first place but rather you only care about me doing X. often times X is actually bad but human nature i…

It can also be used to derail a conversation. I.e. "I find subject X unpleasant, so I am going to imply that you don't care enough about subject Y, which has a passing similarity to it, so that the subject of the conversation turns to Y rather than X. I do not actually care about subject Y, but I won't say that out loud". See also "concern trolling".

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#286

Post by xp84 »

cobolcomesback wrote: post #59
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.

Seriously, are these really the best examples they could come up with? What is the point of having a fake picture of your dog in a costume? What’s the point of having a fake picture about being at a party? The only use case I can think of for this is for someone who likes to make up stories and lie about what they’ve done. Is that really the target market?

Trying to be as least cynical as possible, imagine if you were a party with 3 or more people, and you really wanted a nice pic like that to commemorate the night, but never got to take one all together because someone left early, and you were in the bathroom when they announced their departure.

Yes, it's a major first-world problem to not get a photo, but to the right person, it could mean a lot to them to "fix" the photo they took with A and B to add C to their 'rightful place.'

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#288

Post by jddj »

nozzlegear wrote: post #275
DrammBA wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If twitter and reddit have demonstrated anything is that the fun people are having with image generation is not healthy.

How so? I don't have twitter or reddit, what are people doing?

If my social circle (in real life) is anything to go by, mostly testing out home renovation/decoration ideas.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.5

#289

Post by hightrix »

cobolcomesback wrote: post #256
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.

Yea, “fun”, sure. I’m sure none of those billions of images were used to lie, mislead, or cheat anyone. I’m sure none of those images were used to create fake news narratives, used in advertisements to bait people into buying fake products, or create misleading mockups of rental properties. Definitely not. Nevermind the fact that the examples in OpenAI’s blog post are examples of creating images that have no plausibl…

Do you purposefully not use any products that could be used to do anything harmful?

A hammer is great for pushing nails into wood. It also can crack someone’s skull with efficiency. I’m assuming you do not use hammers then, right?

Post reply on HN