Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPT Image 1.5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 272 posts

Re: GPT Image 1.5

#91

Post by adrian17 »

PhilippGille wrote: post #72
KaiserPro wrote: post #59

Is there a watermarking, or some other way for normal people to tell if its fake?

https://help.openai.com/en/articles/8912793-c2pa-in-chatgpt-... It doesn't mention the new model, but it's likely the same or similar.

I just checked several of the files uploaded to the news post, the "previous" and "new", both the png and webp (&fm=webp in url) versions - none had the content metadata. So either the internal version they used to generate them skipped them, or they just stripped the metadata when uploading.

Re: GPT Image 1.5

#92

Post by margorczynski »

oxag3n wrote: post #46

If this was a farm of sweatshop Photoshopers in 2010, who download all images from the internet and provide a service of combining them on your request, this would escalate pretty quickly. Question: with copyright and authorship dead wrt AI, how do I make (at least) new content protected? Anecdotal: I had a hobby of doing photos in quite rare style and lived in a place where you'd get quite a few pictures of. When I…

We are probably entering the post-copyright era. The law will follow sooner or later.

Re: GPT Image 1.5

#94

Post by jngiam1 »

vunderba wrote: post #5
minimaxir wrote: post #4

I have a Nano Banana Pro blog post in the works expanding on my experiments with Nano Banana ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45917875 ). Running a few of my test cases from that post and the upcoming blog post through this new ChatGPT Image model, this new model is better than Nano Banana but MUCH worse than Nano Banana Pro which now nails the test cases that previously showed issues. The pricing is unclear bu…

I'll be running gpt-image-1.5 through my GenAI Showdown later today, but in the meantime if you want to see some legitimately impressive NB Pro outputs, check out: https://mordenstar.com/blog/edits-with-nanobanana In particular, NB Pro successfully assembled a jigsaw puzzle it had never seen before, generated semi-accurate 3D topographical extrapolations, and even swapped a window out for a mirror.

The mirror test is cool!

Re: GPT Image 1.5

#95

Post by ianbicking »

abbycurtis33 wrote: post #3

I still use Midjourney, because all of these major players are so bad at stylistic and creative work. They're singularly focused on photorealism.

I haven't really kept up with what Midjourney has been doing the past year or two. While I liked the stylistic aspects of Midjourney, being able to use image examples to maintain stylistic consistency and character consistency is SO useful for creating any meaningful output. Have they done anything in that respect?

That is, it's nice to make a pretty stand-alone image, but without tools to maintain consistency and place them in context you can't make a project that is more than just one image, or one video, or a scattered and disconnected sequence of pieces.

Re: GPT Image 1.5

#96

Post by doctorpangloss »

kingkawn wrote: post #11
abbycurtis33 wrote: post #3

I still use Midjourney, because all of these major players are so bad at stylistic and creative work. They're singularly focused on photorealism.

This is a cultural flaw that predates image generation. Even PG has made statements on HN in the past equating “rendering skill” with the quality of art works. It’s a stand-in for the much more difficult task of understanding the work and value of culture making within the context of the society producing it.

Suppose the deck for Midjourney hit Paul Graham's desk, and the CEO was just an average Y Combinator CEO - so no previous success story. He would have never invested in Midjourney at seed stage (meaning before launch / before there were users) even if he were given the opportunity.

Better to read that particular story in the context of, "It would be very difficult to make a seed fund that is an index of all avant garde culture making because [whatever]."

Re: GPT Image 1.5

#97

Post by ares623 »

999900000999 wrote: post #87
blurbleblurble wrote: post #43

It's really weird to see "make images from memories that aren't real" as a product pitch

I can actually imagine actors selling the rights to make fake images with them. In late stage capitalism you pay for fake photos with someone. You have chat gpt write about how you dated for a summer, and have it end with them leaving for grad school to explain why you aren't together. Eventually we'll all just pay to live in the matrix. When your credit card is declined you'll be logged out, to awaken in a shared st…

I can see them getting paid like residuals from TV re-runs.

But after a point it'll hit saturation point. The novelty will wear off since everyone has access to it. Who cares if you have a fake photo with a celebrity if everyone knows it's fake.

Re: GPT Image 1.5

#99

Post by joshstrange »

minimaxir wrote: post #31
alasano wrote: post #30

It's still not available in the API despite them announcing the availability. They even linked to their Image Playground where it's also not available.. I updated my local playground to support it and I'm just handling the 404 on the model gracefully https://github.com/alasano/gpt-image-1-playground

It's a staggered rollout but I am not seeing it on the backend either.

> staggered rollout

It's too bad no OpenAI Engineers (or Marketers?) know that term exists. /s

I do not understand why it's so hard for them to just tell the truth. So many announcements "Available today for Plus/Pro/etc" really means "Sometime this week at best, maybe multiple weeks". I'm not asking for them to roll out faster, just communicate better.

Re: GPT Image 1.5

#100

Post by astrange »

gs17 wrote: post #82

> Still some scientific inaccuracies, but ~70% correct That's still dangerously bad for the use-case they're proposing. We don't need better looking but completely wrong infographics.

It's pretty common for infographics to be wrong. The people making them aren't the same people who know the facts.

I'd especially say like 100% of amateur political infographics/memes are wrong. ("climate change is caused by 100 companies" for instance)

Post reply on HN