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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#801

Post by heddycrow »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #747
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.

So what's the solution? Not using AI?

Support continued development of AI in the open. Support use of local or small scale AI. Your usage, support, and attention matters.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#802

Post by jstummbillig »

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 -…

1) Is there a moat? Is there no moat? Are open models as good as the closed ones? I keep getting confused.

2) As one of these artists, I am entirely fine with my entire body of work being used for the purposes of model building. The tech is astonishing and fantastic, and I sincerely hope we will be better through it. As the parent suggested: The idea that people in general previously gave a fuck about compensating artists is hilarious. MS builds models with my work, random people bought, idk, another vacation in Thailand or a fourth pair of shoes with the money that they never spent on art. I know which one I would prefer.

But I do find it particularly juicy that people, who, on the whole, never thought too much about paying artists (which I am also fine with btw!), all of a sudden can't stop wringing their hands about the injustice of it all.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#803

Post by rkozik1989 »

qnleigh wrote: post #607
parasti wrote: post #554

A great technical achievement, for sure, but this is kind of the moment where it enters uncanny valley to me. The promo reel on the website makes it feel like humans doing incredible things (background music intentionally evokes that emotion), but it's a slideshow of computer generatated images attempting to replicate the amazing things that humans do. It's just crazy to look at those images and have to consciously r…

No this is what life looks like on the other side of the uncanny valley. The images don't look creepy because they look artificial or wrong. They're a reminder of a creepy new reality where our eyes can no longer tell us what's real.

Can't wait for all scams to rip of older folks and people who aren't there but aren't so far gone they still have that nobody has power of attorney over them.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#804

Post by fsloth »

Do note the images will be sterilized and safe.

"Hey give me a comic of how to create a rocket engine i can build at home"

Unlimited creativity will be shackled by safety.

Still pretty amazing.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#805

Post by freedomben »

sandworm101 wrote: post #764
freedomben wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because artists generally own thier material (with exceptions at the very high end) This has not been generally true IME. It follows the same pattern as code quite often. When you pay an artist for their work, many times you also acquire copyright for it. For example if you hire someone to build you a company logo, or art for your website, etc the paying company owns it, not the artist. In-house/employee artists ar…

That is a rarified high end, commissioned artists hired for a paticular task. The vast majority of artists do art without tasking and sell copies, a situation where no copyright moves. I have a Bateman print on my wall. I own the print, not the image. Bateman has not licensed anything to anyone, just selling a physical copy. So scraping his work into AI land is more damaging to him than to a coder who has already sig…

> The vast majority of artists do art without tasking and sell copies, a situation where no copyright moves.

I suspect we may have different definitions of what constitutes an "artist". I include digital art in my definition, and your statement above definitely isn't true for that. Are you just talking about painters/sketchers/etc who are doing it by hand?

If so, limiting the definition to that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially given that AI isn't replacing those gigs. If somebody already creates analog art, I don't see AI as being that much of a change for them

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#806

Post by Lalabadie »

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 -…

Correct. The way it's being built is exactly all that the US mentality warns about socialism/communism (that giving away your hard work "for the greater good" is a lie and is actually a power grab).

Turns out, if it's American oligarchs profiting from everyone's work, they love the idea!

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#807

Post by bluebarbet »

azan_ wrote: post #780
bigfishrunning wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be placing too much value on the output of these machines which use tons of energy, generate pollution (both noise and chemical), and generate output that's worse then what a human can do. We would be better off if these LLMs didn't exist.

Average person in US reducing his/her meat intake by 1/4 would do much, much more for environment compared with completely scrapping entire AI infrastructure worldwide. For some reason people concerned with environmental impact of AI get really angry whenever I point this out.

The average person here would do more still by just taking one less flight. It's air travel that really blows individual emissions out of the water.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#808

Post by bradley13 »

lionkor wrote: post #687
bradley13 wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you put stuff on the internet, people (and machines) can see it. How do you think human artists learn? By looking at other people's artwork. AI can do exactly the same thing. As for code: All of my code is open source. I don't care if people (or machines) learn from it. In fact, as a teacher, I sincerely hope that they do! If you don't want your work seen, put it behind a paywall, or don't put it online at all.

That's a very strange view. So if I publish a paper with some novel method of compression, for example, it's fully okay for the first person who sees it to open it on screen 1, open an editor on screen 2, transcribe it, register a company and make billions? Is that how you WANT the world to work? Because that sure isn't how it works, and that's not been how it works, that's not been legal, and your argument is to sud…

Your comment is way off-base. If you publish a paper, the expression is copyrighted, but your algorithm is not protected at all. If you want to protect the algorithm, you need a patent. Then, the person "making billions" needs to pay you a license fee.

However, even then:

- An algorithm is not patentable. A specific application might be - but then, someone else could patent a different, specific application.

- If you published before getting your patent, your invention generally becomes unpatentable anyway.

However, we were discussing copyright. Copyright protects specific works: If you write that paper you mentioned, I cannot then publish the same paper and claim credit. If you paint a picture, I cannot sell copies of that picture. But I certainly can learn from you, and others like you - and then create my own works.

The fact that AI is more efficient at this? So what? That does not in any way affect the principle.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#809

Post by bluebarbet »

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.

One benefit of this forum is that they purposely passed over notifications precisely to save us from the temptation to "deal with" replies.
Post reply on HN