This is an amazing technological achievement. Kudos.
This is so much better than the competition. I suspect that this will have an impact in business and education, at a minimum.
ChatGPT Images 2.0
831–840 of 1001 posts
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#832Anyone test it out for generating 2D art for games? Getting nano banana to generate consistent sprite sheets was seemingly impossible last time i tried a few months ago.
I'm still looking for a free tool to convert images to 3d models well.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#833Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, but contributors to OSS have generally given away thier rights by contributing to the project per the license. So stealing from OS isnt as bad as stealing material still totally owned by an individual, such as a drawing scraped from a personal website. From a common FOSS contributor license... >>permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documenta…
No, contributors to FOSS generally do not give away their rights. They contribute to the project with the expectation that their contributions will be distributed under its license, yes, but individual contributors still hold copyright over their contributions. That's why relicensing an existing FOSS project is such a headache (widely held to require every major contributor to sign off on it), and why many major corp…
You're still mixing up contributor license agreements with the kind of arrangements where the copyright is actually transferred and assigned "away" from the creator to another copyright holder (generally a copyright assignment agreement). This is far less common than CLAs.
I don't know what you mean by a rugpull exactly, but of course in theory you can grant/obtain very extensive rights under a CLA as well, including eg the permission to relicense your contributions under whatever terms the licensee prefers. CLAs are a great way to centralize the IPR in an open source project for practical purposes like license enforcement, but in case the CLA terms allow it, the central governing entity could also obtain the right to switch the license even to a, say, commercial one. (Such terms would usually be a red flag for contributors though.) And in any case, that kind of CLA wouldn't still close off the code already released under the previous open-source license, and neither would it prevent you from licensing your own contributions under terms of your choice.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#834Every 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.
let's not pretend that it would make any difference if these models were trained with only licensed data. you folx would still decry this technology.
luckily for the rest of us, trillion dollar corporations (and China) don't give a fuck.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#835What are your thoughts about using natural semantic language to achieve edits to a picture? As users of technical software, we have absorbed an entire science and work model behind the things we do. Before now, I found it impossible to replicate that kind of precision with AI generated images. But it seems like it is possible with natural language prompting, which makes this more accessible to layman users. But what can more advanced users accomplish? Is there a more technical prompting that can be given?
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#836I am super out of the loop here, what happened with Dall-E?
DALL-E 3 (last version I think) went dark over a year ago and has since been replaced by the gpt-image-x series which honestly is a bit of a shame because the weird surreal images it generated were still pretty fun from an experimental point of view.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#837I tricked it into making a nude. That was fun.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#838Earlier 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…
Would your ideal world apply to humans as well? Like if I see some art in a museum and it inspires me to create some of my own, I would need to pay a licensing fee to the original artist?
And what about the artists that inspired them? There is no art in the world that sprang fully formed from one single person, without any influences.
Should we reshape our economy to ensure knowledge and artistic provenance is maintained perpetually?
This whole discussion is so weird to me. It’s like AI has freaked everyone out so much that the instinct is to run to the safety of Disney-esque complete control and perpetual monetization of every work.
Which is exactly the opposite of how art worked for the first several hundred thousand years. Really, we want to double down on the perverse incentives and tight control that IP owners have given us in the past 50 years?
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#839Every 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 will remember that AI removes repetitive, tedious work and frees actual creators to achieve things that have never been done before. Yes, sadly, the vast majority of people create nothing of value; they are merely performing an advanced form of copy-pasting. That certainly includes me. Perhaps the problem with this hatred of AI is that a large proportion of people on this planet are not as intelligent or creative a…
I've wrote a warehouse management system, and other apps for a medium sized business. It is running the business. I helped changed how the business operates. However, I really did not create anything that has not existed before.
I just learned how to write code and applied it. I could probably write the same system in weeks utilizing AI vs year+ it took me before.
I have fixed feelings about AI, on one hand I hate tedious coding tasks, writing tests, fixing small logical bugs. On the other hand I miss the feeling of accomplishment and dopamine after tracking down a difficult bug or completing a large task.
I also do find it funny how large businesses are embracing AI but AI can empower smaller devs to create products that will compete with large business. I do wonder how the future will look like.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#840Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Open source AI is even worse for copyright infringement lol. They have 0 filters.