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

GPT Image 1.5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 272 posts

Re: GPT Image 1.5

#71

Post by jiggawatts »

KaiserPro wrote: post #63
sharkjacobs wrote: post #8

Was it ever explained or understood why ChatGPT Images always has (had?) that yellow cast?

Meta's codec avatars all have a green cast because they spent millions on the rig to capture whole bodies and even more on rolling it out to get loads of real data. They forgot to calibrate the cameras, so everything had a green tint. Meanwhile all the other teams had a billion macbeth charts lying around just in case.

Also, you'd be shocked at how few developers know anything at all about sRGB (or any other gamut/encoding), other than perhaps the name. Even people working in graphics, writing 3D game engines, working on colorist or graphics artist tools and libraries.

Re: GPT Image 1.5

#75

Post by ragequittah »

netule wrote: post #58
nobody_r_knows wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my question to your anecdotal: who cares? not being fecicious, but who cares if someone reproduced your stuff and millions of people see your stuff? is the money that you want? is it the fame? because fame you will get, maybe not money... but couldn't there be another way?

Suddenly, copyright doesn't matter anymore when it's no longer useful to the narrative.

Copyright has overstepped its initial purpose by leaps and bounds because corporations make the law. If you're not cynical about how Copyright currently works you probably haven't been paying attention. And it doesn't take much to go from cynical to nihilist in this case.

Re: GPT Image 1.5

#77

Post by anonfunction »

alasano wrote: post #30

It's still not available in the API despite them announcing the availability. They even linked to their Image Playground where it's also not available.. I updated my local playground to support it and I'm just handling the 404 on the model gracefully https://github.com/alasano/gpt-image-1-playground

Yeah I just tried it and got a 500 server error with no details as to why:

  POST "https://api.openai.com/v1/responses": 500 Internal Server Error {
    "message": "An error occurred while processing your request. You can retry your request, or contact us through our help center at help.openai.com if the error persists. Please include the request ID req_******************* in your message.",
    "type": "server_error",
    "param": null,
    "code": "server_error"
  }
Interestingly if you change to request the model foobar you get an error showing this:

  POST "https://api.openai.com/v1/responses": 400 Bad Request {
    "message": "Invalid value: 'blah'. Supported values are: 'gpt-image-1' and 'gpt-image-1-mini'.",
    "type": "invalid_request_error",
    "param": "tools[0].model",
    "code": "invalid_value"
  }

Re: GPT Image 1.5

#78

Post by Forgeties79 »

nobody_r_knows wrote: post #53
oxag3n wrote: post #46

If this was a farm of sweatshop Photoshopers in 2010, who download all images from the internet and provide a service of combining them on your request, this would escalate pretty quickly. Question: with copyright and authorship dead wrt AI, how do I make (at least) new content protected? Anecdotal: I had a hobby of doing photos in quite rare style and lived in a place where you'd get quite a few pictures of. When I…

my question to your anecdotal: who cares? not being fecicious, but who cares if someone reproduced your stuff and millions of people see your stuff? is the money that you want? is it the fame? because fame you will get, maybe not money... but couldn't there be another way?

As a professional cinematographer/photographer I am incredibly uncomfortable with people using my art without my permission for unknown ends. Doubly so when it’s venture backed private companies stealing from millions of people like me as they make vague promises about the capabilities of their software trained on my work. It doesn’t take much to understand why that makes me uncomfortable and why I feel I am entitled to saying “no.” Legally I am entitled to that in so many cases, yet for some reason Altman et al get to skip that hurdle. Why?

How do you feel about entities taking your face off of your personal website and plastering it on billboards smiling happily next to their product? What if it’s for a gun? Or condoms? Or a candidate for a party you don’t support? Pick your own example if none of those bother you. I’m sure there are things you do not want to be associated with/don’t want to contribute to.

At the end of the day it’s very gross when we are exploited without our knowledge or permission so rich groups can get richer. I don’t care if my visual work is only partially contributing to some mashed up final image. I don’t want to be a part of it.

Re: GPT Image 1.5

#79

Post by aziis98 »

I know this is a bit out of scope for these image editing models but I always try this experiment [1] of drawing a "random" triangle and then doing some geometric construction and they mess up in very funny ways. These models can't "see" very well. I think [2] is still very relevant.

[1]: https://chatgpt.com/share/6941c96c-c160-8005-bea6-c809e58591...

[2]: https://vlmsareblind.github.io/

Re: GPT Image 1.5

#80

Post by mmh0000 »

KaiserPro wrote: post #59

Is there a watermarking, or some other way for normal people to tell if its fake?

I know OpenAI watermarks their stuff. But I wish they wouldn't. It's a "false" trust.

Now it means whoever has access to uncensored/non-watermarking models can pass off their faked images as real and claim, "Look! There's no watermark, of course, it's not fake!"

Whereas, if none of the image models did watermarking, then people (should) inherently know nothing can be trusted by default.

Post reply on HN