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

ChatGPT Images 2.0

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#151

Post by TomGarden »

spijdar wrote: post #122
kibibu wrote: post #107

Genuine question: what positive use cases are sufficient to accept the harm from image generators? One that i can think of: - replacing photography of people who may be unable to consent or for whom it may be traumatic to revisit photographs and suitable models may not be available, e.g. dementia patients, babies, examples of medical conditions. Most other vaguely positive use cases boil down to "look what image gene…

The same question could be poised of art in general. I know that response would (and probably should) ruffle peoples' figurative feathers, but I think it's worth considering. A lot of art isn't "necessary for society". The question still stands, "are the benefits worth the cost to society", but it bears remembering we do a lot of things for fun which aren't "necessary for society".

I used to think like what you describe, but I've fallen on the side of "art is just more emotionally resonant human communication". And most of the time human communication with more effort and thought behind it. AI art falls short on both being human and, on average, having more effort or thought behind it than your general interaction at the supermarket.

I will say, it can be emotionally resonant though - but it's a borrowed property from the perception of human communication and effort that made the art the models were trained on.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#152

Post by tills13 »

spijdar wrote: post #122
kibibu wrote: post #107

Genuine question: what positive use cases are sufficient to accept the harm from image generators? One that i can think of: - replacing photography of people who may be unable to consent or for whom it may be traumatic to revisit photographs and suitable models may not be available, e.g. dementia patients, babies, examples of medical conditions. Most other vaguely positive use cases boil down to "look what image gene…

The same question could be poised of art in general. I know that response would (and probably should) ruffle peoples' figurative feathers, but I think it's worth considering. A lot of art isn't "necessary for society". The question still stands, "are the benefits worth the cost to society", but it bears remembering we do a lot of things for fun which aren't "necessary for society".

The difference between "art in general" and this is scale and speed. Sure, I'll grant you that people are going to engage in deception with or without this but the barrier to entry with this is literally on the floor. Do you have a $5 prepaid VISA? You can generate whatever narrative you want in 30 seconds. Replace the $5 Prepaid VISA with the pocketbook of a three letter agency and it starts getting crazy.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#153

Post by tomrod »

dakiol wrote: post #118

> On the flip side, there are hundreds of ways that these tools cause genuine harm, not just to individuals but to entire systems. Yeah, agree. I think it's the first time I'm asking myself: Ok, so this new cool tech, what is it good for? Like, in terms of art, it's discarded (art is about humans), in terms of assets: sure, but people is getting tired of AI-generated images (and even if we cannot tell if an image is…

AI loopidity rearing it's head. Just send the bullet points that we all want anyway, right?! Stop sending globs of text and other generated content!

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#154

Post by lxgr »

ea016 wrote: post #13

Price comparison: GPT Image 2 Low : 1024×1024 $0.006 | 1024×1536 $0.005 | 1536×1024 $0.005 Medium : 1024×1024 $0.053 | 1024×1536 $0.041 | 1536×1024 $0.041 High : 1024×1024 $0.211 | 1024×1536 $0.165 | 1536×1024 $0.165 GPT Image 1 Low : 1024×1024 $0.011 | 1024×1536 $0.016 | 1536×1024 $0.016 Medium : 1024×1024 $0.042 | 1024×1536 $0.063 | 1536×1024 $0.063 High : 1024×1024 $0.167 | 1024×1536 $0.25 | 1536×1024 $0.25

Interesting, I wonder why larger outputs are more expensive than smaller square ones on v2, while it’s the other way around in v1.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#156

Post by cubefox »

abraxas wrote: post #67
Flere-Imsaho wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wake up everyday, read the tech news, and usually see some step change in AI or whatever. It's wild to think I'm living through such a massive transformation in my lifetime. The future of tech is going to be so different from when I was born (1980), I guess this is how people born in 1900 felt when they got to see man land on the moon? > Wow, the difference between AI and non-AI images collapses. I hate the future…

As someone born in 1975 I always felt until the last couple of years that I had been stuck in a long period of stagnation compared to an earlier generation. My grandmother who was born in the 1910s got to witness adoption of electricity, mass transit, radio, television, telephony, jet flights and even space exploration before I was born. Feels like now is a bit of a catchup after pretty tepid period that was most of…

You will likely witness strongly superhuman AI, which dwarfs any changes your grandmother saw.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#157

Post by jliptzin »

arjie wrote: post #108
dktp wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting. It fails every single time for me. I'm in Germany, maybe Google is stricter here? See https://imgur.com/a/77BRDQv

That makes sense to me. I just Googled around like a fool and got here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Germany It seems like they're trying to follow local law. What a nightmare to have to manage all jurisdictions around such a product. Surprised it didn't kill image generation entirely.

Yea, especially when they know all that work will be completely pointless in a few years when open source / local models will be just as good and won't have any legal limitations, so people will be generating fake images of famous people like crazy with nothing stopping them

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#158

Post by nothinkjustai »

spijdar wrote: post #122
kibibu wrote: post #107

Genuine question: what positive use cases are sufficient to accept the harm from image generators? One that i can think of: - replacing photography of people who may be unable to consent or for whom it may be traumatic to revisit photographs and suitable models may not be available, e.g. dementia patients, babies, examples of medical conditions. Most other vaguely positive use cases boil down to "look what image gene…

The same question could be poised of art in general. I know that response would (and probably should) ruffle peoples' figurative feathers, but I think it's worth considering. A lot of art isn't "necessary for society". The question still stands, "are the benefits worth the cost to society", but it bears remembering we do a lot of things for fun which aren't "necessary for society".

Art is for the producer, and if they feel it’s necessary for them to produce it than it’s necessary for them, and what is necessary for the individual extends to the society they’re in.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#159

Post by mcmcmc »

ndriscoll wrote: post #124
kibibu wrote: post #107

Genuine question: what positive use cases are sufficient to accept the harm from image generators? One that i can think of: - replacing photography of people who may be unable to consent or for whom it may be traumatic to revisit photographs and suitable models may not be available, e.g. dementia patients, babies, examples of medical conditions. Most other vaguely positive use cases boil down to "look what image gene…

Not much beyond food, water, and shelter is "necessary" for society, but it's nice to have nice things. I'm teaching my 4 year old to read. She likes PAW Patrol, but we've kind of exhausted the simple readers, and she likes novelty. So yesterday I had an LLM create a simple reader at her level with her favorite characters, and then turned each text block into a coloring page for her. We printed it off, she and her yo…

So the use case is just IP theft so you can get more Paw Patrol?

AI aside, if you’ve truly exhausted all the simple readers, maybe she should move on to more advanced books instead of repeating more of the same and gamifying it, which seems a great way to destroy a child’s natural curiosity.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#160

Post by Vachyas »

thevinter wrote: post #82
Vachyas wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly unsure what could be improved at this point. Consistency? So it fails less often? Based on the released images, (especially the one "screenshot" of the Mac desktop) I feel like the best images from this model are so visually flawless that the only way to tell they're fake is by reasoning about the content of the image itself (ex. "Apple never made a red iPhone 15, so this image is probably fake" or "Cost…

There is definitely room for improvement: https://gist.github.com/simonw/88eecc65698a725d8a9c1c918478a... Especially when it comes to detailed outputs or non-standard prompts. I do believe it will get even better - not sure it will happen within a year but I wouldn't be incredibly surprised if it did.

That's a good example, actually.

If you asked me what I expected, since this one has "thinking", it'd be that it would've thought to do something like generate the image without Waldo first, then insert Waldo somewhere into that image as an "edit"

Post reply on HN