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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#811

Post by WarmWash »

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 -…

That's also the wrong framing

AI Labs are getting a tiny cut of the hundreds saved by not hiring an artist.

So regular people save hundreds, the labs get a few dollars, and the artists get nothing.

The artists are still losing, but it's regular people, especially the least able, who are winning.

The coffee shop isn't cutting OAI a $300 check for doing their spring menu. They are pocketing $295 and paying OAI $5.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#812

Post by ori_b »

jstummbillig wrote: post #802
tsimionescu wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

What art have you produced? I did a little googling, and I can't find anything of note in public.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#813

Post by yawnr »

sp_c wrote: post #636
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.

I don't understand why everyone is all up and arms about Images / Art being generated by AI, but when it comes to code... well who cares? The people who made all the code training data are also getting nothing! Potentially the one difference is that developers invented this and screwed themselves, whereas artists had nothing to do with AI.

I care about both and think it's all a disgrace.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#814

Post by jubilanti »

what wrote: post #478
jetbalsa wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh god yes, I've been trying to make a LLM Assisted Magic the Gathering card scanner... its been a hell of a time trying to get it to just OCR card names well....

Why would you use an LLM for OCR?

Because apparently that's what programming is and can only be these days...

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#816

Post by rkozik1989 »

johnwheeler wrote: post #428
swalsh wrote: post #116

Been using the model for a few hours now. I'm actually reall impressed with it. This is the first time i've found value in an image model for stuff I actually do. I've been using it to build powerpoint slides, and mockups. It's CRAZY good at that.

Yeah, it's funny. I would expect to see more enthusiasm versus just basic run-of-the-mill, "oh, there it is". Leave it to the HN crowd. This is incredible. I don't even like OpenAI.

LLMs make for great day 1 demos, but in a few weeks I promise you many people will be able to tell nearly all of the images generated by this are AI. It just takes time and exposure to figure out the new common flaws.

Frankly, I am not sure if they will ever actually be able to solve this problem or if it'll be a continuous game of whackamole, but regardless there's a large crowd of people out there where if they can tell something is AI generated they will not support the company behind it. Being able to tell anything is AI generate cheapens brands.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#818

Post by sandworm101 »

freedomben wrote: post #805
sandworm101 wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Artist is everyone who creates copyrighted works. You, me, everyone with a camera. Everyone with a guitar who records. Digital art or paintbrushes, lines of code or lines in the next harry potter novel, it is legally all the same. The artist/creator gets total copyright, then either licenses those rights away or sells copies.

I even have rights over that pervious paragraph. It aint worth much but if someone wanted to monitize it i would have rights i could assert.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#819

Post by slibhb »

Jtarii wrote: post #356
slibhb wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like, in terms of art, it's discarded (art is about humans) If a work of art is good, then it's good. It doesn't matter if it came from a human, a neanderthal, AI, or monkeys randomly typing.

The connection with the artist, directly, or across space and time, is a critical part of any artwork. It is one human attempting to communicate some emotional experience to another human. When I watch a Lynch film I feel some connection to the man David Lynch. When I see a AI artwork, there is nothing to connect with, no emotional experience is being communicated, it is just empty. It's highest aspiration is elevato…

I don't agree. If a poem is moving, it's moving. It doesn't matter who wrote it.

I understand these are fundamental questions about aesthetics that people differ over. But that's how it works for me. However, ultimately, I think people will realize that I'm right around the time that AI does start generating good art.

Post reply on HN