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

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#791

Post by ACCount37 »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #781
jeroenhd wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A counterfactual world where artists were paid for AI training is one where an average artist is 5 cents richer, an average image generation AI performs 5% worse, and the bulk of extra data spending is captured by platforms selling stock photos and companies destructively digitizing physical media. No, a counterfactual world where artists were paid for AI training wouldn't see commercially viable AI at all. A world…

> but because AI surprised the copyright industry, it's now too late to enforce copyright like that. I think I've got whiplash from the way a lot of the tech scene has gone from 'IP troll outfits are malicious actors who make everything worse for everyone else' to 'IP troll outfits are an ethical and effective solution to exploitation in the AI industry'. I'm not a huge fan of much of the generative AI industry, but…

"Copyright" is, frankly, just an excuse people who hate AI latch onto.

Many of the people who rally against AI now used to rally against Napster being prosecuted by RIAA and the Big Mouse renewing copyright expiration dates once again.

It's not that they suddenly gained an appreciation for the copyright law. It's that they found something they hate more than the big record label megacorps - and copyright became a tool they think they can leverage against it. Very stupid, IMO.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#792

Post by 4k93n2 »

SyneRyder wrote: post #284
stackedinserter wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have plenty for you: - package design - pictures for manuals and guides - navigation and signs - booklets, tickets and flyers - logos of all sorts - websites - illustrations for books And many. many others. Not every image is art and very few illustrators are artists.

No idea why you were down voted, I think that's exactly how this will get used. I'm already imagining this is how the local live indie band night I sometimes go to will generate poster images each week for the bands that are playing, whether to put up at the venue or post to social media. And the bands might be using it to design images to put on their t-shirts and other merch. I already know some indie bands using t…

sounds like a very efficient way for an indie band to lose all of their street cred at once

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#793

Post by whywhywhywhy »

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 it was about this why do OpenAI and Anthropic lose their minds when people are training off their output.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#794

Post by whywhywhywhy »

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 it was about this why do OpenAI and Anthropic lose their minds when people are training off their output or trying to scrape their systems.

I actually don't have an issue with training off the mass of everyones work if the models are open and free to build upon, it's locking them away and then throwing your toys out the pram when people try and do the same thing that bothers me.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#795

Post by torginus »

tsimionescu wrote: post #774
arghwhat wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is, in my opinion, attempting to say the right thing with entirely the wrong perspective: The people you say are getting "shafted" always got shafted. Their works are the inspiration for all artists and people who lay their eyes on it - maybe they got paid when they made the work, maybe they managed to sell it, but probably not. And still, other artists (and machines) will use remember and be inspired by it, som…

You're ignoring the biggest problem here: the concentration and extraction of wealth. The sum total of human artists were previously getting those billions of dollars, and now it's OpenAI (and Anthropic, and Google, and Microsoft, and maybe a handful of other players) getting it. Now, maybe it actually used to be hundreds of millions of dollars, and they've grown it to billions, and maybe they deserve some of that -…

I wonder what happened to actual artists though - they seem to be doing fine. I'm sure many people as consumers dabbled in AI art, and reached the conclusion after hours that what they made never looked quite right.

Then they found they could commission an actual artist to draw what they wanted for tens or hundreds of dollars, which is a very good price for getting exactly what you want without having to waste your time playing the token slot machine.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#797

Post by heddycrow »

kolinko wrote: post #724
barnabee wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Regulate so that you price out equal access to it.

Small players can't afford cost of regulation.

Then create a layer around that which all small players pay into so they can participate regardless of whether they do or not - something like insurance or licensing.

Modernity.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#798

Post by ndriscoll »

breezybottom wrote: post #490
ndriscoll wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I don't view "IP" as valid, don't entertain the idea that it is possible to "steal" it, and absolutely don't care that someone out there might be sad imagining me making a coloring book for my kids. In fact I'd go so far as to say that holding the position that there's something wrong with tailoring teaching to a child's interests and avoiding that for fear of copyright concerns of all things actually makes you…

Ah the old sovereign citizen reverse uno. It's actually evil NOT to use the art theft machine to dumb down your children.

Yes, generating tailored practice material for a continuous difficulty curve and to keep their focus with something they enjoy is dumbing down. Exactly.

Do you get this upset at illegal drug users for their flouting the law (e.g. recreational marijuana is still illegal everywhere in the US) as you do with me making reading material for my own children? Do you get this upset at artists themselves who no doubt "stole" others' art (e.g. copied a drawing or drew a character they did not "own") at some point in their learning process?

I also sing Raffi songs to my children without asking for permission! I hope he doesn't mind!

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#799

Post by maplethorpe »

netruk44 wrote: post #783
maplethorpe wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried setting showdead=yes but two comments I remember seeing earlier today (as replies to one of my comments) are still gone. Does anyone what else might have happened to them?

Maybe the posters might have deleted the comments themselves? I often post comments on HN, just to delete them 5 minutes later when I realize I don’t care to deal with the replies I’ll eventually get. You have to be quick because if someone does reply, you can no longer delete your message.

I didn't realise messages even had a delete button. I'm going to reply here so I can check.

edit: you're right, there's a delete button.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#800

Post by lxgr »

rasKqa wrote: post #743
lxgr wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see properly argued positions, even if very anti-AI, hang around, but cheap tribalist takes usually get downvoted pretty quickly.

Cheap pro-AI comments don't get flagged though. You can repeat the same talking points forever: - "Artists have always been exploited" (patently false since at least 1950, it was a symbiosis with the industry). - "Humans have always done $X". - "You are a Luddite." - "This is inevitable."

Personally I’d downvote these if not further substantiated. Flags are reserved for outright rage bait or personal insults for me.

At least I hope; can’t say I always perfectly follow “up/downvote doesn’t indicate (dis)agreement but rather contribution to the discussion” perfectly.

Post reply on HN