Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who provided training material for AI images, received payment in likes and shares
Is this satire?
Likely, https://www.reddit.com/r/forexposure/ material otherwise
ChatGPT Images 2.0
751–760 of 1001 posts
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#752Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think that’s completely true, there is an art to code beyond it just being correct. There are a great many correct implementations of a program, but only some of them are really beautiful as well. Most people don’t see the code or appreciate this, but the difference between correct and art is clear to me when I see it.
Code can be beautiful or ugly but that doesn't make it art. Art is not just about beauty, it is about expressing the mind (feelings, experience etc) of the author. AI will never do that (except if it learns to express its own experiences, which would be art, but not something competing with human art; it would be like if we had contact with alien art).
Code is my art and is how I express myself. I agree that nothing that AI does is art.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#753Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a fair comparison... A model can ingest a countless number works in day and reproduce stylistic fingerprints on demand, at zero marginal cost. How are the people it learned from meant to compete with that? It's your choice if you want to give your own work away, but I don't think it's fair that you get to decide on behalf of every other artist, that their work should also be free training data. Do you want all mu…
It absolutely is a fair comparison. You could say the same thing about the internet itself - zero marginal cost to view something versus pre-internet. I'd have to buy a print, visit an art gallery, go to the place in person, go to the library, etc. That's all friction and cost to "ingest" art. Some of it costs something and some just the cost of going.
> It absolutely is a fair comparison.
It's not a fair comparison because it's wrong. Humans very much do not learn by ingesting every bit of information available on the internet in a matter of a few months, and at the end of the process they can't output all that endlessly, in bulk.
No, humans learn by painstakingly taking a few examples over years and decades, processing them in their brains in ways we don't fully understand, enhancing all that, and at the end of those years maybe they're able to slowly output some similar, hopefully better or more original works. But by far most humans won't manage to do it even after decades of trying.
Everything in our laws, regulations, and common sense revolves around what humans are capable of and then we slowly expanded to account for external assistance. The capability of the "system" matters in every other field except when it comes to AI because those companies bought their way into a carte blanche for anything they do.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#754Every 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…
[deleted]
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#755Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is apples to oranges, the flash version version a full version this thing is like 5x better than flash at fine grain detail
.40 cents for high quality output is insanely cheap it is only going to get cheaper
You people keep saying this and token prices keep doubling. The cope of the gambler is truly one to marvel.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#756Earlier quoted context omitted.
Code can be beautiful or ugly but that doesn't make it art. Art is not just about beauty, it is about expressing the mind (feelings, experience etc) of the author. AI will never do that (except if it learns to express its own experiences, which would be art, but not something competing with human art; it would be like if we had contact with alien art).
Code is my art and is how I express myself. I agree that nothing that AI does is art.
Fair enough.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#757Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I agree, but as one of the other comments say, they are not able to read your mind. So even if the structure and style is not clear, you must be able to express what you want.
Certainly. I just think "expressing thoughts in words clearly" might in the end turn out to be something different than what we, humans consider clear. For example long unstructured rambling might turn out to be a non-issue, while as human I would rank such message low no matter how good it is in other informational aspects.
That's true. I feed Codex some very long .md files that I use as a kind of work diary and that are pain to use into something very much usable. Writing your thoughts is important even if done carelessly.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#758"Benchmarks" aside, do anyone actually use these image models for anything?
People are using them for creating marketing material for their business.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#759Every 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.
My vision for a new internet is a space where we can guarantee something is coming from an human and is genuine. The second point is that we get paid for feeding our AI overlords
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#760Every 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.
The hardest part about human creativity is hiding (and not paying royalties to) your influences.