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

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#721

Post by ACCount37 »

lionkor wrote: post #705
ACCount37 wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "people who made this possible" were getting their fair share, "a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it" would be about it for the artists. What makes the dataset valuable isn't that the image 0012992 in it is precious and irreplaceable. It's that the index goes to seven digits. Pre-training is very much a matter of scale - and scraping is merely the easiest way to get data at scale. People who co…

The ideal world would be one where, to train on art, you have to buy a license to that art. Sure, for most artists they would maybe put a low price tag, but that isn't the point. The point isn't about money. It's that copies were made, without license and without permission, and without any legal right to do so, of art, and then used to train a system which generates similar art. The first step, the copy, is illegal…

"Without any legal right to do so" is for the courts to decide. And so far, the courts are very much not deciding the way you want them to.

"Fair use" counters "without license and without permission" hard. The argument that training AI on scraped data is "fair use" and the resulting model outputs are "transformative works" has held up in courts. Anthropic got dinged for downloading pirated books, but not for throwing the ones they didn't pirate down the training pipeline.

Some countries, like Japan, have amended their copyright laws to make AI training categorically legal. Others are in "fair use clauses" grey areas with courts deciding case by case based on precedent and interpretation. So trying to latch onto copyright law is, as it always was, the wrong move. Copyright never favored the small guy. Stupid to expect that it suddenly will.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#722

Post by peepee1982 »

ACCount37 wrote: post #701
lionkor wrote: post #613

Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.

If "people who made this possible" were getting their fair share, "a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it" would be about it for the artists. What makes the dataset valuable isn't that the image 0012992 in it is precious and irreplaceable. It's that the index goes to seven digits. Pre-training is very much a matter of scale - and scraping is merely the easiest way to get data at scale. People who co…

If the dataset weren't valuable, big tech wouldn't depend on it to train their models.

I don't care about getting a millionth of a cent as an artist (which btw is a number *you* just pulled out of your imagination). I care about them paying a fair share instead of pocketing it, so the money stays in circulation instead of creating a new class of technofeudal lords.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#723

Post by lxgr »

lionkor wrote: post #709
lxgr wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point, but would you say it would meaningfully change things if all LLMs were to ship with a wall of text of all BSD attributions that were found in the training set?

No, of course not. The issue is that code was copied and used, without adhering to the license, as training data. Even before training started, that's not right. That's the issue. All of this would not be possible if laws were adhered to. This is very much a "the end justifies the means" situation. The same could be argued about e.g. the Netherlands and genocide/slavery. The Netherlands is great, if you've ever been,…

I'm not arguing that it's generally and automatically ok, I'm just saying that it's probably also not right to see it as entirely and inherently immoral, and that some people are probably fine with their contributions to the public domain being used in it.

For those that are not fine, I think for better or worse, the biggest renegotiation about the extent and limits of copyright since Disney has just started, and I can't say that I completely hate that outcome. (I do find it quite telling that this is what it took, though.)

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#724

Post by kolinko »

barnabee wrote: post #630
lionkor wrote: post #613

Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.

A lot of people here aren't going to like it, but the only reasonable way out I can see is to eventually socialise ownership and control of AI. I don't see an alternative that isn't really bad.

We’ll probably do the same we did with electricity, water, banking and telecomunnication - regulate (even in US) so that everyone has more or less equal access to it.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#725

Post by kolinko »

tgv wrote: post #673
lionkor wrote: post #613

Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.

> except you get shafted That's the point, isn't it? Creating images via AI offers nothing to society. Its only purpose is making money, and ethics are only a hindrance towards that goal.

I did a lot of AI images to show my friends and enjoy. There was definitely a benefit to society.

And my friends used AI as a replacement of stock photos and graphics in their products which offer a ton to society.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#726

Post by peepee1982 »

kolinko wrote: post #720
lionkor wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ideal world would be one where, to train on art, you have to buy a license to that art. Sure, for most artists they would maybe put a low price tag, but that isn't the point. The point isn't about money. It's that copies were made, without license and without permission, and without any legal right to do so, of art, and then used to train a system which generates similar art. The first step, the copy, is illegal…

Ideal for whom? For society in general, I don’t think so.

I think it would obviously better for society.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#727

Post by SlinkyOnStairs »

ACCount37 wrote: post #701
lionkor wrote: post #613

Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.

If "people who made this possible" were getting their fair share, "a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it" would be about it for the artists. What makes the dataset valuable isn't that the image 0012992 in it is precious and irreplaceable. It's that the index goes to seven digits. Pre-training is very much a matter of scale - and scraping is merely the easiest way to get data at scale. People who co…

> Pre-training is very much a matter of scale - and scraping is merely the easiest way to get data at scale.

Therein lies the problem. AI firms just bulldozed ahead and "just did it" with no consideration for the ethics or legality. (Nor for that matter, how they're going to get this data in the future now that they're pushing artists into unemployment and filling the internet with slop.)

There is no "imagined counterfactual", people just want AI firms to follow basic ethics and apply consent. Something tech in general is woefully inadequate at.

The counterfactual isn't offered by artists, but AI companies. "If we had to ask consent then we couldn't have made this". Okay, so? The world isn't worse off without OpenAI's image generator. Who cares, there's no economic value to these slop images, they're merely replacing stock assets & quickly thrown together MS paint placeholders.

Given how much of a shitshow this technology has always been (I refuse to mince words: This tech had it's "big break" as "deepfakes", and Elon Musk has escalated that even further. It's always been sexual harassment.) The actual net value to society is almost certainly negative.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#728

Post by nlitened »

lionkor wrote: post #613

Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.

It’s about time we shaft the gatekeepers of talent, and redistribute and socialize the means of art production.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#729

Post by LeifCarrotson »

MrManatee wrote: post #593
minimaxir wrote: post #234

So during my Nano Banana Pro experiments I wrote a very fun prompt that tests the ability for these image generation models to follow heuristics, but still requires domain knowledge and/or use of the search tool: Create a 8x8 contiguous grid of the Pokémon whose National Pokédex numbers correspond to the first 64 prime numbers. Include a black border between the subimages. You MUST obey ALL the FOLLOWING rules for th…

Prompts like this feel like it's using the wrong abstraction. The "obvious" thing to do with something like this would be to generate some code that generates the image and then run that code. Inspired by this, I tried something much simpler. I asked it to draw 12 concentric circles. With three tries it always drew 10 instead. https://chatgpt.com/share/69e87d08-5a14-83eb-9a3b-3a8eb14692...

I think prompts like this are where agentic workflows come in to play. If you asked it to do generate the first 64 prime numbers, AI tools could do that. If you asked it to draw a charcoal image of Pokemon 13, it could do that. If you asked it to add a white Menlo 13 on a black background to the top left corner of that image, it could do that. If you asked it to do that 63 more times, it could do those things, and if you asked it to assemble those into a grid, it could.

It can't get that in a one-shot. Perhaps, though, it could figure out when it needs to break a problem into individual tasks to delegate to itself and assemble them at the end.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#730

Post by jwpapi »

twobitshifter wrote: post #443
jwpapi wrote: post #290

Why is it all so asian?

Having 60% of the world’s population might do that.

My hint was at an issue in the american educational system.

I‘m sure if they could they would have shown more all americans. Especially given how important the state connection is for them to keep up their spending..

That means they struggle to find american technical presenters

Post reply on HN