351–360 of 474 posts
[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.
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.
It is 100% not. You can create a whole lot of misinformation with an image. You cannot do that by visiting a website. To dismiss the concern with “people are having fun” is, at best, a naive idea and, at worst, a deliberately deceitful and malicious comment.
... for almost the last 40 years
"a deliberately deceitful and malicious comment."
This is a 'lost contact with reality' type of thing to say.
This thread is not about AI, it's entirely about people's ability to ground reality.
[1] https://petapixel.com/2015/02/20/a-blast-from-the-past-demos...
https://generative-ai.review/2026/09/rush-openai-image-gen-2...
right, off to bed now
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sheer waste that accompanies image and video genAI is actually terrifying. I challenge OpenAI to put a "your carbon footprint" field next to each generation. If you have nothing to hide, more information is surely better, right?
Every SDXL image uses something like 0.5 Watt-hour. That means that 2000 sdxl images uses about 30 cents of electricity. If we multiply that by 30x for video (a fair assumption for models like minimax H3, which take that much longer to make video), that means you get almost 700 5-second videos for a dollar of electricity, which is about a kilo of carbon dioxide. More or less depending on where your electricity comes…
It takes about 7 minutes for my RTX 5090 to generate a 15 second video with MiniMax H3. At 600 watts, that's 252,000 watt-seconds, or 0.07 kilowatt-hours.
My electricity is 18 cents/kWh, so $0.0126. Just a little over a penny.
text-to-text is a solved problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's it. Yeah ignoring the massive environmental, social, and moral implications I suppose it’s not a big deal at all.
The 'environmental' consideration is much less than the argument over 'paper or plastic'. That's going to be an issue of regulation and cost - not some arbitrary decision over 'whether I should make an image or just use text'. Second - there are really not much in the way 'social or moral implications' for the most part. This is a dystopian delusion that I'm hinting at here. Folks are blowing this way out of proporti…
Citation needed.
More to the point: both can be bad. We don't let people run stop signs because running red lights is worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many memes/gifs do you think have been created by hand or with generators over the last ~20 years?
Not sure you can compare huge ML clusters of GPUs running models in order to do these images, and the typical "meme generator" which is basically a call to imagemagick passing an image and some text.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is 100% not. You can create a whole lot of misinformation with an image. You cannot do that by visiting a website. To dismiss the concern with “people are having fun” is, at best, a naive idea and, at worst, a deliberately deceitful and malicious comment.
Here is a guy tweaking photos of 'girls on a beach' in 1990 with Photoshop, which anyone can use to do, relatively easily ... ... for almost the last 40 years "a deliberately deceitful and malicious comment." This is a 'lost contact with reality' type of thing to say. This thread is not about AI, it's entirely about people's ability to ground reality. [1] https://petapixel.com/2015/02/20/a-blast-from-the-past-demos..…
Did anyone else notice that all the use cases they show here are "use ChatGPT Images to imagine all the things you'd like to have, but don't"? For some, they then show the thing being done, since just imagining it is a bit sad. But ChatGPT Images can't help you with that part. At best, it's providing creative inspiration - but that's often the most rewarding part of the process for a human... None of the examples sho…
I think you've picked the most cynical interpretation for each one. More charitably, you could say: - Ideate on things you can build for your fish tank - Iterate quickly on ideas for a tattoo - Get inspiration for a new metalworking (or 3D printing?) project - Get a sense for what a new haircut might look like, before you commit - Iterate on arrangements for a bouquet of flowers - Do silly things with childhood photo…