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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#871

Post by atonse »

runarberg wrote: post #849
WarmWash wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. The coffee shop who isn’t paying an artist $300 is gonna get negative reviews and loose customers and money from their bad business decision[1]. I know I would think twice about ordering at a café which uses AI in their marketing, and I am not the only one. The coffee shop who cannot afford the $300 for an artist and homebrews their design in Microsoft Word is still doing just as before, the coffee shop which can…

So to save the idea of $300 (logo design with "local" talent is never $300, it is only that cheap if you offshore it), they tried to ruin a business that presumably employs multiple LOCAL people full time (way more than $300) with 1 star reviews to "punish it"

This is an internet mob at its worst. Not an example of anything to emulate, in my opinion.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#872

Post by dd8601fn »

podgietaru wrote: post #853
minimaxir wrote: post #234

So during my Nano Banana Pro experiments I wrote a very fun prompt that tests the ability for these image generation models to follow heuristics, but still requires domain knowledge and/or use of the search tool: Create a 8x8 contiguous grid of the Pokémon whose National Pokédex numbers correspond to the first 64 prime numbers. Include a black border between the subimages. You MUST obey ALL the FOLLOWING rules for th…

How is it that a model can produce what must be near 1:1 images ripped straight out of Pokemon Fire Red (The first ones) for profit and not be infringing copyright. I know that's the game, but it seems CRAZY to me that they can do this.

The funny this is the main complaint I’ve heard so far is that it repeatedly refused to operate on original content… because it might violate copyright.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#874

Post by LiteSoul »

vunderba wrote: post #83

OpenAI’s gpt-image-1.5 and Google’s NB2 have been pretty much neck and neck on my comparison site which focuses heavily on prompt adherence, with both hovering around a 70% success rate on the prompts for generative and editing capabilities. With the caveat being that Gemini has always had the edge in terms of visual fidelity. That being said, gpt-image-1.5 was a big leap in visual quality for OpenAI and eliminated m…

Great website, 2 things:

1 - Gpt-image-2 seems to pass the Flat Earth test? (if not, I'm sure the paid thinking 2k version passes it).

2 - Since NB2 was earlier, many gold medals are assigned to it, even though now GI2 passes them too, example the Octopus test NB2 14 attempts but GI2 just 2 (BTW number of attempts should affect the score I guess?)

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#875

Post by runarberg »

WarmWash wrote: post #868
runarberg wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The coffee shop who isn’t paying an artist $300 is gonna get negative reviews and loose customers and money from their bad business decision[1]. I know I would think twice about ordering at a café which uses AI in their marketing, and I am not the only one. The coffee shop who cannot afford the $300 for an artist and homebrews their design in Microsoft Word is still doing just as before, the coffee shop which can…

Sure, just like every software company using AI is going to go under and every video game using AI will fail?

I am not sure what you mean. The AI backlash is real, and it has real and obvious effects in the real world, with written articles to prove it.

If you are attempting here to shift the focus away from coffee shops (may I remind you, you were the one who brought that as an example) and into video games or software companies, I simply reject that attempt.

That there exists a software company which uses AI in their product and is not failing has no bearing on the framing on how a coffee shop which is too cheap to pay an artist for their logo does indeed look cheap to it’s customers who will be inclined to give that café a negative review or otherwise avoid said café.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#876

Post by DrewADesign »

podgietaru wrote: post #853
minimaxir wrote: post #234

So during my Nano Banana Pro experiments I wrote a very fun prompt that tests the ability for these image generation models to follow heuristics, but still requires domain knowledge and/or use of the search tool: Create a 8x8 contiguous grid of the Pokémon whose National Pokédex numbers correspond to the first 64 prime numbers. Include a black border between the subimages. You MUST obey ALL the FOLLOWING rules for th…

How is it that a model can produce what must be near 1:1 images ripped straight out of Pokemon Fire Red (The first ones) for profit and not be infringing copyright. I know that's the game, but it seems CRAZY to me that they can do this.

It can’t. It violates copyright. The big players are the only ones with the money to pursue these things, but they’re interested in replacing artists with AI trained on their models so they settle and set up some sort of agreement. The little guys have no presidential case law to help them along, and nowhere close to the resources to push it that far, so they get steamrolled. I know artists famous enough for people— even commercial entities — to regularly blatantly rip them off by name with “in the style of” prompts, but there’s no realistic path to pursue it. Fame doesn’t pay legal bills.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#877

Post by johnwheeler »

rkozik1989 wrote: post #816
johnwheeler wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're thinking is like everyone else's, and it's backwards. The world will learn to accept it as the standard way of doing things and people will appreciate one generation over another and look at manual image creation as a niche activity like blacksmithing vs assembly-line manufacturing and automation. With the latter, you appreciate the intent and the end result. Same thing here, people are just adjusting to it.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#878

Post by runarberg »

atonse wrote: post #871
runarberg wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The coffee shop who isn’t paying an artist $300 is gonna get negative reviews and loose customers and money from their bad business decision[1]. I know I would think twice about ordering at a café which uses AI in their marketing, and I am not the only one. The coffee shop who cannot afford the $300 for an artist and homebrews their design in Microsoft Word is still doing just as before, the coffee shop which can…

So to save the idea of $300 (logo design with "local" talent is never $300, it is only that cheap if you offshore it), they tried to ruin a business that presumably employs multiple LOCAL people full time (way more than $300) with 1 star reviews to "punish it" This is an internet mob at its worst. Not an example of anything to emulate, in my opinion.

People hate AI, and this is one of very few ways people have to punish AI. It is bound to happen.

And in either case, this example destroys the framing that coffee shop owners are the ones who benefit from the systemic art theft employed by AI companies.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#879

Post by NetOpWibby »

Lerc wrote: post #688
NetOpWibby wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I've seen such a story on HN before, you can probably find it by searching for "water" and "data center/AI."

The closest match I found was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44562052 The article tries to play sleight of hand with the specific instance that they cite but it seems that the loss of water is alleged to be caused by sediment from construction rather than water use. It's not great that it happened and it is something local government should take action on, but it is also something that could have been caused by…

That's exactly the article I was thinking of.

Data center construction exposing weaknesses in local infrastructure is a double-edged sword; you wanna know if things need upgrading but you don't wanna be negatively affected by it.

Maybe there should be some clause in these contracts that mandate tech companies foot the bill for local infrastructure improvements.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#880

Post by Bjartr »

leptons wrote: post #558
Bjartr wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would make the prompt a better actual evaluation in your judgement?

Not focusing on pokemon for a start. Maybe use something more people can recognize and evaluate. I have zero knowledge of pokemon, I see it as a niche thing for ultra-nerdy people, and not something everyone is familiar with. Nothing about that test can be evaluated by anyone but a pokemon expert. Sorry, but pokemon isn't as mainstream as some people might think it is.

I think you underestimate how popular Pokemon is.

By most objective measures it's the largest entertainment franchise in all of history.

Would you also object to any other pop-culture reference for the same reason?

Post reply on HN