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

Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 593 posts

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#361

Post by SpaceNoodled »

scrozier wrote: post #351
keiferski wrote: post #237

Some random predictions about what AI image generation tools will do/are doing to art: 1. The narrative/life of the artist becomes a lot more important. The most successful artists are ones that craft a story around their life and art, and don't just create stuff and stop. This will become even more important. 2. Originality matters more than ever. By design, these tools can only copy and mix things that already exis…

> Taste continues to be the single most important thing. The vast, vast majority of AI art out there is...not very good. It's not going to get better, because the lack of taste isn't a technical problem. This is precisely and importantly true. I just wonder if most of the world cares. I'd like to think so, but experience tells me that most of the world is satisfied with mediocre stuff. And I don't say this as a criti…

Well, it can be both.

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#362

Post by zug_zug »

Aerroon wrote: post #190
zug_zug wrote: post #102

I'm sure this has been written about but here's what happens long term - images are commoditized and lose their emotional appeal. Probably about half of us here remember photos before the cell phone era. They were rare, and special, and you'd have a few photos per YEAR to look back on. The feel of photos back then, was at least 100x stronger than now. They were a special item, could be given as a gift. But once they…

I don't fully agree. Perhaps you're right when it comes to images as a whole, but I think individual images themselves still capture that emotional value for me. Even if there were a million fake Tom Cruise movies I would still like Edge of Tomorrow (even if it had been AI made).

Yeah I mean edge of tomorrow is a great concept though and would have worked without him. Whereas a movie that’s got less going for it like MI 5 will seem bland once he’s commodified

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#363

Post by wordpad »

Timpanzee wrote: post #86
wordpad wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the complete opposite is true. Artists aren't doing it for the money. With advanced tools like these they wouldve iterated much faster and created much grander designs. Art is about pushing limits of what's possible and AI just raises those limits.

AI isn't a tool for creating art in the same way as a paintbrush or clay. AI is describing a painting you want, then having someone else creating the artwork for you. You aren't doing art in the same way hiring a sculptor isn't doing sculpting. AI is well on the way to eliminating human made art since the skills to actually make art will be lost to the skill of being able to describe art. You know, since the only thi…

AI is a productivity tool. Instead of working on a single graphic, the artist can now work on the entire marketing campaign. Instead of spending a year working on background special effects for a single scene, one could now personally produce full featured films.

It will be a golden age where the core differentiating factor is true talent and ideas and execution and not any gatekeeping by degrees, connections or budget.

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#364

Post by mrec »

the_af wrote: post #287
electrosphere wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reminds me of the Star Wars content thats come out recently - before there was the Original Trilogy which we all watched many times and the lines became iconic. Since then it's all become a mismash and blur of mediocrity due to over-exposure. (except The Mandalorian, and I can't believe I'm using the word "content" :/) edit: Totally forgot about Andor & Rogue One sorry, great film and two seasons of top-notch stor…

> except The Mandalorian Mandalorian started strong, with cool spaghetti Western vibes, and then ended up devolving into mediocrity too. In my opinion. Haven't watched Andor yet.

Andor is fantastic, but I think it's important to set expectations before going in. Compared to other SW content it's much slower-paced and more restrained/cerebral.

Mandalorian didn't do much for me; too gamey/Marvel-ey/cartooney.

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#365

Post by SpaceNoodled »

ACCount37 wrote: post #323
avmich wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly disagree. > 1... The narrative/life of the artist becomes a lot more important. When I watch a movie, I don't care about the artist's life. I care about character life, that's very different. > 2... Originality matters more than ever. By design, these tools can only copy and mix things that already exist. It's like you assigning to humans divine capabilities :) . Hyperbolizing a little, humans also only copy…

It's kind of like the difference between something being enjoyable for you, and something being widely popular? In a hypothetical world of "AI can produce a lot of extremely high quality art", you can easily find (or commission) AI art you would absolutely love. But it probably wouldn't be something that anyone else would find a lot of value in? There will be no AI-generated Titanic. There will be many AI-generated m…

Was Titanic actually that good of a film? Perhaps I should watch it again now that almost three decades have passed.

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#366

Post by randito »

zackmorris wrote: post #163
jacquesm wrote: post #21

What a great thing this didn't exist in the past. We likely wouldn't have had any of the amazing artworks that we have now. Imagine an AI generated Mona Lisa, Nightwatch or Sistine Chapel ceiling because prompting would have been so much cheaper than paying Leonardo, Rembrandt or Michelangelo... Now extrapolate to all other artforms. Sculpture seems safe, for now, but only barely so.

I think of it more as that AI will destroy the profit motive in all things, not just art. What we used to think of as talent/skill/experience will no longer be scarce, because anyone will be able to make anything with a prompt. The perceived value will be in wholes built of valueless parts (gestalts). AI is incompatible with capitalism, but the world isn't ready for that. So we'll have a prolonged period of intense a…

(McKenna tangent). I like this version of that talk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL0yfxDe6jE. It's about 12 minutes and animated with some hand-drawn whiteboard drawings. Good stuff.

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#367

Post by avmich »

squidsoup wrote: post #349
adventured wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing special about art re humans and it doesn't require feeling or lived experiences. That's an arbitrary wall you're putting up.

Demonstrably wrong. The most highly regarded AI artist today is Refik Adanol. His work was recently described by Jerry Saltz as a "glorified lava lamp".

I don't think this is a demonstration of impossibility, just a lack of demonstration of possibility.

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#368

Post by ACCount37 »

SpaceNoodled wrote: post #365
ACCount37 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of like the difference between something being enjoyable for you, and something being widely popular? In a hypothetical world of "AI can produce a lot of extremely high quality art", you can easily find (or commission) AI art you would absolutely love. But it probably wouldn't be something that anyone else would find a lot of value in? There will be no AI-generated Titanic. There will be many AI-generated m…

Was Titanic actually that good of a film? Perhaps I should watch it again now that almost three decades have passed.

It was pretty good, but many movies were that good. I picked Titanic specifically because it was broadly popular and culturally relevant.

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#369

Post by avmich »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #321
avmich wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly disagree. > 1... The narrative/life of the artist becomes a lot more important. When I watch a movie, I don't care about the artist's life. I care about character life, that's very different. > 2... Originality matters more than ever. By design, these tools can only copy and mix things that already exist. It's like you assigning to humans divine capabilities :) . Hyperbolizing a little, humans also only copy…

>It's like you assigning to humans divine capabilities :) . Hyperbolizing a little, humans also only copy and mix - where do you think originality comes from? Granted, AI isn't at the level of humans yet, but they improve here. Humans do that a lot but it's not all we do. Go to a museum that has modern(ish) art. It's pretty incredibly how diverse the styles and ideas are. Of course it's not representative of anything…

> I'm not sure current genAI models do these sorts of things.

You might be right here. Two points though - first, we don't know if current AI is actually incapable of something in particular; we didn't find this, didn't prove it. Second, we might have a different AI approach, which would actually be capable of these things you mention. To me, it's way too early to dismiss AIs - at least in principle - regarding all of this.

Re: Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model

#370

Post by javier123454321 »

avmich wrote: post #269
keiferski wrote: post #237

Some random predictions about what AI image generation tools will do/are doing to art: 1. The narrative/life of the artist becomes a lot more important. The most successful artists are ones that craft a story around their life and art, and don't just create stuff and stop. This will become even more important. 2. Originality matters more than ever. By design, these tools can only copy and mix things that already exis…

I mostly disagree. > 1... The narrative/life of the artist becomes a lot more important. When I watch a movie, I don't care about the artist's life. I care about character life, that's very different. > 2... Originality matters more than ever. By design, these tools can only copy and mix things that already exist. It's like you assigning to humans divine capabilities :) . Hyperbolizing a little, humans also only copy…

> It's like you assigning to humans divine capabilities :)

I can't tell if you're being facetious. But being an embodied consciousness with the ability to create is as divine as it gets. We'd do well to remember.

Post reply on HN