the tragedy of image generating ai is that it is used to massively create what already exists instead of creating something truly unique - we need ai artists - and yeah, they will not be appreciated
Why would we need AI artists tho?
ChatGPT Images 2.0
921–930 of 1001 posts
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#922for video game assets this is massive. but in general though - will people believe in anything photographic ? imagine dating apps, photographic evidence. I'm guessing we're gonna reach a point where - you fuck up things purposely to leave a human mark.
> for video game assets this is massive. Storefronts like Steam require disclosing use of AI assets for art. In most indie dev spaces, devs are scolded for using AI art in their games. I wonder if this perspective will change in a few years.
I doubt it. Fortunately more and more people are against AI usage for any kind of assets in games and other media.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#923Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 maint…
>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?
Nope, humans are admitted for free :).
>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.
As long as you are a human you get to be inspired all you want :)
You seem very invested in licking the boot of the trillion dollar corporations. Your fellow humans are concerned.
>Really, we want to double down on the perverse incentives and tight control that IP owners have given us in the past 50 years?
Isn't it interesting that the EXACT second that copyright law impedes billion dollar corporations it is thrown out the window, really makes you think huh?
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#924Every groundbreaking new AI release feels like a volley of cannonfire towards the soul. Oof.
Nothing digital could ever truly have soul. We must embrace physical reality if we want to find true connection, to something real.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#925Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah not a realistic scenario. AI is immensely useful and if applied correctly will help humanity. The question is how do you reign in the robber barons, who just want to use AI to maintain their status quo and extract more and more profit from the system.
> AI is immensely useful Right up until you need to do something you can't plagiarize > if applied correctly will help humanity. It isn't and won't be. Its entire purpose is to plagiarize artists, writers, and programmers, and to slowly whittle away those professions as viable. When there are no engineers left, we'll go back to sticks and stones I guess.
AI output is obviously transformative and would be protected by fair use.
The argument is about whether the training data was stolen. (which it was)
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#926Earlier quoted context omitted.
> except you get shafted That's the point, isn't it? Creating images via AI offers nothing to society. Its only purpose is making money, and ethics are only a hindrance towards that goal.
'I dislike AI, therefore it has no value to anyone.' Who knew the international unit of truth was your feelings?
Generative art has negative value, saying it has no value is far too generous. It actively makes the world a worse place.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#927Generating a 4096x4096 image with gemini-3.1-flash-image-preview consumes 2,520 tokens, which is equivalent to $0.151 per image. Generating a 3840x2160 image with gpt-image-2 consumes 13,342 tokens, which is equivalent to $0.4 per image. This model is more than twice as expensive as Gemini.
Misleading conclusion.
This model is 8 times cheaper than Gemini for 1K images. Gemini is extremely overpriced.
1K image with Gemini is roughly $0.08 and only $0.01 with GPT Image.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#928Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, your prompt is basically this skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg ("The Expert" 7 red lines: all strictly perpendicular, some with green ink some with transparent ink) I couldn't imagine the image you were describing. I've listed some of the red lines with green ink I've noticed in your prompt: Macro Close Up - Sharp throughout Focus on tiny gear - But also on tweezers, old watchmakers hand, wat…
Yeah I dunno bud, I have a degree in film and three Emmy awards for technical production (an expert), I could shoot that prompt (unlike the so called "expert" in the skit). Canon EF 100mm Macro USM at f32 should be able to produce that, focus doesn't need to imply aperture, and a quick google search shows me there are loads of front gear pocket watches available. Also it produced something very clearly not shot with…
Far be it for me to add to a comment by an expert from someone who only whipped out his macro lens for ring shots at weddings and - about 2 hours ago - a picture of our latest newborn. However, I think most photographers is that situation wouldn’t shoot at f/32 due to diffraction and would focus stack instead.
Of course, a text to image model shouldn’t really need to worry about that sort of thing.
Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0
#929I know people like to dunk on ChatGPT and Gemini and say Claude is or used to be better, but you can still use worse models when you're out of usage AND make use of Nano Banana and and ChatGPT Image generation with separate limits for your subscription. I think it could make it a more package as a whole for some people (non-programmers). I do like having the option and am excited for which improvements they've done t…
I still see that piss filter on their samples. It isn’t as bad, but someone there really loves it.
That “piss filter” was all the rage among medium and low budget family/wedding photographers for quite a while, and still isn’t uncommon. I doubt it’s just from RLHF.