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

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#301

Post by frmersdog »

____tom____ wrote: post #44

No mention of modifying existing images, which is more important than anything they mentioned. I think we all know the feeling of getting an image that is ok, but needs a few modifications, and being absolutely unable to get the changes made. It either keeps coming up with the same image, or gives you a completely new take on the image with fresh problems. Anyone know if modification of existing images is any better?…

Image editing program -> different versions of the image, each with some but not all of the elements you want, on each layer -> mask out the parts you don't need/apply mask, fill with black, soft brush with white the parts you want back in. Copy flattened/merged, drop it back into the image model, keep asking for the changes. As long as each generation adds in an element you want, you can build a collage of your final image.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#302

Post by james2doyle »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #194
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…

The issue is that the signalling makes sense when human generated work is better than AI generated. Soon AI generated work will be better across the board with the rare exception of stuff the top X% of humans put a lot of bespoke highly personalized effort into. Preferring human work will be luxury status-signalling just like it is for clothing, food, etc.

I think "better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this argument. Better how?

Is an AI generated photo of your app/site going to be more accurate than a screenshot? Or is an AI generated image of your product going to convey the quality of it more than a photo would?

I think Sora also showed that the novelty of generating just "content" is pretty fleeting.

I would be interested to see if any of the next round of ChatGPT advertisements use AI generated images. Because if not, they don’t even believe in their own product.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#303

Post by satisfice »

tempaccount5050 wrote: post #164
Gigachad wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where I’m at. If you can’t be bothered to write/make it, why would I be bothered to read or review it?

Because I'm not an artist and can't afford to pay one for whatever business I have? This idea that only experts are allowed to do things is just crazy to me. A band poster doesn't have to be a labor of love artisanal thing. Were you mad when people made band posters with MS word instead of hiring a fucking typesetter? I just don't get it.

How about going without? I can’t afford an artist, either, so I don’t have art. Don’t foist slop on people because you are trying to be something that you aren’t.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#304

Post by runarberg »

bulletsvshumans wrote: post #228
runarberg wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely unrelated, but I am curious about your keyboard layout since you mistyped ö instead of - these two symbols are side by side in the Icelandic layout, and the ö is where - in the English (US) layout. As such this is a common type-o for people who regularly switch between the Icelandic and the English (US) layout (source: I am that person). I am curious whether more layouts where that could be common.

This is also a stylistic choice that the New Yorker magazine uses for words with double vowels where you pronounce each one separately, like coöperate, reëlect, preëminent, and naïve. So possibly intentional.

That makes sense[1] but it prompts the obvious question: does this style write it as typeö then?

1: Though personally I hate it, I just cannot not read those as completely different vowels (in particular ï → [i:] or the ee in need; ë → [je:] or the first e here; and ö → [ø] or the e in her)

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#305

Post by vunderba »

papichulo2023 wrote: post #142
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…

Seems good enough to generate 2D sprites. If that means a wave of pixel-art games I count it as a net win. I dont think gamers hate AI, it is just a vocal miniority imo. What most people dislike is sloppy work, as they should, but that can happen with or without AI. The industry has been using AI for textures, voices and more for over a decade.

> Seems good enough to generate 2D sprites.

It’s really not. That's actually a pet peeve of mine as someone who used to spent a lot of time messing with pixel art in Aseprite.

Nobody takes the time to understand that the style of pixel art is not the same thing as actual pixel art. So you end up with these high-definition, high-resolution images that people try to pass off as pixel art, but if you zoom in even a tiny bit, you see all this terrible fringing and fraying.

That happens because the palette is way outside the bounds of what pixel art should use, where proper pixel art is generally limited to maybe 8 to 32 colors, usually.

There are plenty of ways to post-process generative images to make them look more like real pixel art (square grid alignment, palette reduction, etc.), but it does require a bit more manual finesse [1], and unfortunately most people just can’t be bothered.

[1] - https://github.com/jenissimo/unfake.js

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#306

Post by vinyl7 »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #194
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…

The issue is that the signalling makes sense when human generated work is better than AI generated. Soon AI generated work will be better across the board with the rare exception of stuff the top X% of humans put a lot of bespoke highly personalized effort into. Preferring human work will be luxury status-signalling just like it is for clothing, food, etc.

The goal of art isn't to be perfect or as realistic as possible. The goal of art is to express, and enjoy that unique expression.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#308

Post by galleywest200 »

bulletsvshumans wrote: post #241
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…

Democratizing visual communication is arguably useful, for instance helping people to create diagrams that illustrate a concept they wish to convey. This is contingent on the tech working sufficiently well that the visuals are more effective at communication than the text that went into producing them though.

Can these people not just create a diagram with their own hands? Literally a pencil and paper.

I am at the point where I would prefer a poorly human drawn diagram with terrible handwriting over AI slop.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#309

Post by JimsonYang »

> you can make your own mangas

No you can’t.

You still have the studio ghibili look from the video. The issue of generating manga was the quality of characters, there’s multiple software to place your frame.

But I am hopeful. If I put in a single frame, can it carry over that style for the next images? It would be game changing if a chat could have its own art style

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#310

Post by dolebirchwood »

Gigachad wrote: post #196
zulban wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody can be bothered to make my cat out of Lego and the size of mount Everest but if an AI did I'd sure love to see it. Your quip is pithy but meaningless.

I'm not saying it's worthless for yourself, it's worthless to me as a viewer. AI content is great for your own usage, but there is no point posting and distributing AI generation. I could have generated my own content, so just send the prompt rather than the output to save everyone time.

And when the distilled knowledge/product is the result of multiple prompts, revisions, and reiterations? Shall we send all 30+ of those as well so as to reproduce each step along the way?
Post reply on HN