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

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#911

Post by runarberg »

BeetleB wrote: post #904
arghwhat wrote: post #898

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but this is a bit of an oversimplification. The "99%" tends to be either: 1. Pointless throwaway content which we can just ignore as a new source of noise, 2. Something that could have ended up being a $5 commission[^1] to a kid somewhere out there but now never will be. Those numbers are also a bit too aggressive - it's easy to miss what kind of gig work exist out there. PowerPoint as a service is a thing on Fi…

> The "99%" tends to be either: 1. Pointless throwaway content which we can just ignore as a new source of noise, 2. Something that could have ended up being a $5 commission[^1] to a kid somewhere out there but now never will be. Or 3. Something I made and I actually use, but I would never have paid a kid $5 to do. Yes, I know of Fiverr and similar sites. Even planned on using it once. Even know someone in another co…

I have seen arguments that a lot of your nr. 3 is basically just addiction. You are making the AI slot machine generate stuff for you and you get to have the sense of accomplishment that comes with thinking you created something without putting in any of the work of actually creating something. To the rest of the world this is indistinguishable from your parent’s nr. 1.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#912

Post by qingcharles »

justani wrote: post #545

I have a few cases where nano banana fails all the time, even gpt image 2 is failing. A 3 * 3 cube made out of small cubes, with a small 2 * 2 cube removed from it - https://chatgpt.com/share/69e85df6-5840-83e8-b0e9-3701e92332... Create a dot grid containing a rectangle covering 4 dots horizontally and 3 dots vertically - https://chatgpt.com/share/69e85e4b-252c-83e8-b25f-416984cf30... One where Nano banana fails but…

It did well on the PBJ Rubik's Cube test I run:

https://imgur.com/a/unpVdS8

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#913

Post by qingcharles »

dktp wrote: post #63

One interesting thing I found comparing OpenAI and Gemini image editing is - Gemini rejects anything involving a well known person. Anything. OpenAI is happy to edit and change every time I tried I have a sideproject where I want to display standup comedies. I thought I could edit standup comedy posters with some AI to fit my design. Gemini straight up refuses to change any image of any standup comedy poster involvin…

OpenAI wouldn't make me a Looney Tunes Roadrunner Martin Scorsese "Absolute Cinema" parody, but Gemini didn't blink about the trademark violation. Also, the output was really nice:

https://imgur.com/a/Jclezyi

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#914

Post by BeetleB »

runarberg wrote: post #911
BeetleB wrote: post #904

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "99%" tends to be either: 1. Pointless throwaway content which we can just ignore as a new source of noise, 2. Something that could have ended up being a $5 commission[^1] to a kid somewhere out there but now never will be. Or 3. Something I made and I actually use, but I would never have paid a kid $5 to do. Yes, I know of Fiverr and similar sites. Even planned on using it once. Even know someone in another co…

I have seen arguments that a lot of your nr. 3 is basically just addiction. You are making the AI slot machine generate stuff for you and you get to have the sense of accomplishment that comes with thinking you created something without putting in any of the work of actually creating something. To the rest of the world this is indistinguishable from your parent’s nr. 1.

Fair point. It's just that his number 1 was "Pointless throwaway content", and I was saying "Well, actually, it's not thrown away but actually used".

You may look at the output and say "Crap!", but the reality is the person using it found value in it.

(To be honest, I used to think "Crap!" to stock photos long before LLMs came on to the scene, so I have little sympathy with stock photo photographers going out of business - those photos exist primarily to attract readers and do not provide any value to the content - they're just like ads in that regard).

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#915

Post by makerofthings »

Kiro wrote: post #892
makerofthings wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Code is my art and is how I express myself. I agree that nothing that AI does is art.

Code in general is obviously not art, which is all that matters here.

I respectfully disagree, I think code has always been more of an art than a science. It's an odd one, I'll grant you, as you need to do a lot of work to really appreciate it.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#916

Post by overgard »

niek_pas wrote: post #622
overgard wrote: post #216

Pretty mixed feelings on this. From the page at least, the images are very good. I'd find it hard to know that they're AI. Which I think is a problem. If we had a functioning congress, I wonder if we might end up with legislation that these things need to be watermarked or otherwise made identifiable as AI generated.. I also don't like that these things are trained on specific artist's styles without really crediting…

Maybe I'm stupid and naive but I just don't really see how any of this is _fundamentally_ different from Photoshop. Trusting the images you're looking at on the internet has been impossible for a long time. That's why we have institutions and social relations we place trust in instead.

It's really a matter of scale. Photoshopping something takes time, and unless you're good there are ways to tell. Typing something into an AI is so much faster which means you can do it at scale, and you don't need to be skilled to do it.

Also, kind of out of scope for this discussion but deepfake videos are really the most scary.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#917

Post by overgard »

runarberg wrote: post #242
overgard wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, I have some band posters that are pretty cool pieces of art that obviously had a lot of thought put into them (pre-AI era stuff). I don't think I'd hang up an AI generated band poster, even if it was cool; I'd feel weird and tacky about it.

I was hosting a Karaoke event in my town and really went out of my way to ensure my promotional poster looked nothing like AI. I really really really did not want my townfolks thinking I would use AI to design a poster. My design rules were: No gradients; no purple; prefer muted colors; plenty of sharp corners and overlapping shapes; Use the Boba Milky font face;

I don't know why you're downvoted, I think that's a reasonable use of AI and it looks pretty good.

Edit: I think I misread what you were saying, but I do think it's a nice poster! I get that design is going to have to avoid doing things that AI does, which is kind of unfortunate, because AI is likely trained on a lot of things that are generally good ideas.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#918

Post by minimaxir »

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.

So the sprites aren't what I considered plagiarism since to my surprise they are sufficiently different even though it's a similar design to the FR/LG sprites.

For Charmeleon, the sprite is closest to the B/W sprite, but not exact: https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Charmeleon_(Pokémon)...

For Squirtle, the sprite is much closer to the FR/LG sprite but still some differences: https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Squirtle_(Pokémon)#S...

The other images, however, crib from official artworks a bit too close for comfort.

In my original analysis I hypothesized this is due to token scarcity that reduces the ability for the model to be created: I believe that NBP images used 1.5k tokens for that image while the gpt-2-image used 7k tokens, but this is hard to test.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#919

Post by minimaxir »

dd8601fn wrote: post #872
podgietaru wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In testing the ChatGPT interface it appears to be looser on copyright than expected given the legal trouble.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#920

Post by wiseowise »

ndriscoll wrote: post #826
wiseowise wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re taking about diagrams, all it takes is an experimentation and an iota of thought.

And yet coming up with insightful diagrams, even or especially if they are particularly simple, can be a point of fame (c.f. Feynman diagrams). Diagrams often need to "lie" in some sense, so it can actually be quite difficult to find ways to convey the point you want without misleading in some other important way. e.g. I had a geometry professor that would label the x-axis R^n and the y-axis R^m for a bunch of differ…

We’re talking about people using LLMs because they can’t do it by hand. They won’t be splitting atoms with or without LLMs.
Post reply on HN