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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#941

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

parasti wrote: post #554

A great technical achievement, for sure, but this is kind of the moment where it enters uncanny valley to me. The promo reel on the website makes it feel like humans doing incredible things (background music intentionally evokes that emotion), but it's a slideshow of computer generatated images attempting to replicate the amazing things that humans do. It's just crazy to look at those images and have to consciously r…

That's not the uncanny valley. It's literally the other side of the uncanny valley.

The uncanny valley is when it's just slightly imperfect which makes things feel "off".

When we've reached the point that the AI is indistinguishable from humans, we've exited the uncanny valley.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#942

Post by mercacona »

fennecfoxy wrote: post #895
mercacona wrote: post #683

Every improvement in image generation seems to reduce the value of the images themselves. When anything can be faked or created in seconds, what is an image really worth? With text or code, you can dig into a meaningful dialogue because their reality is digital too. But images become like the plain people to show up photo frames. I guess it's just a completely personal feeling.

Nah I'm gonna generate the hecky out of "relevant for this one presentation" little cliparts to add to my powerpoints. But then I'm still going to take photos on film and enjoy Sunday afternoons in the darkroom doing prints. It's possible to compromise and/or use the right tool for the right job. Saving me time for something of little or fleeting importance? AI. Making me feel good/physical work with hands/emotion ch…

Haha! Please, don’t! We don’t need clipart or senseless AI generated schemas on PowerPoints :-)

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#943

Post by mw888 »

parasti wrote: post #554

A great technical achievement, for sure, but this is kind of the moment where it enters uncanny valley to me. The promo reel on the website makes it feel like humans doing incredible things (background music intentionally evokes that emotion), but it's a slideshow of computer generatated images attempting to replicate the amazing things that humans do. It's just crazy to look at those images and have to consciously r…

Uncanny Valley means the content directly evokes that creepy feeling, because the 'unrealness' is somehow subjectively apparent.

But you say yourself you "have to consciously remind [yourself]" it isn't real. The Uncanny Valley is not applicable when true subjective realness is imparted.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#944

Post by Planktonne »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #866
Planktonne wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is absolutely not more critical of AI output than the norm. It's been true for various technologies that HN (and tech audiences in general) have a more nuanced view, but AI flips the script on that entirely. It's the tech world who are amazed by this, producing and being delighted by endless blogposts and 7-second concept trailers.

I think we are conflating usage vs consumption. I think HN probably uses GenAI more than average population. But I think HN consumes less GenAI content than average population. Look at Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, TikTok, etc. All I see is my non-techie friends being amazed and mesmerized by - cute animals, creepy animals, political events, jokes, comedy, outrage, events, speeches - that never ever happened. As if w…

You're on a site where the commenters read AI-generated articles about how they can generate new images to include in their generated websites that they themselves generate more articles about.

Sure, the weird cat-people adverts aren't aimed at HN's commentariat, but every 'democratise art and build that game you've dreamt of' pitch is. Every breathless paean to AI assistants/companions/partners is targeted at the users here.

Usage is a form of consumption; thinking of yourself as a creator while you consume doesn't mean you consume less.

Non-tech users are being fed fake images when they browse idly. Tech users are restructuring their entire lives around these tools.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#945

Post by leptons »

Bjartr wrote: post #880
leptons wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>I think you underestimate how popular Pokemon is.

No, I think you are overestimating how popular pokemon is.

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

I don't care? Only a small set of pokemon fans would be able to gain anything from this "test".

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

Yes.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#946

Post by freedomben »

sandworm101 wrote: post #818
freedomben wrote: post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The vast majority of artists do art without tasking and sell copies, a situation where no copyright moves. I suspect we may have different definitions of what constitutes an "artist". I include digital art in my definition, and your statement above definitely isn't true for that. Are you just talking about painters/sketchers/etc who are doing it by hand? If so, limiting the definition to that doesn't make a lot of…

Artist is everyone who creates copyrighted works. You, me, everyone with a camera. Everyone with a guitar who records. Digital art or paintbrushes, lines of code or lines in the next harry potter novel, it is legally all the same. The artist/creator gets total copyright, then either licenses those rights away or sells copies. I even have rights over that pervious paragraph. It aint worth much but if someone wanted to…

Heh, nice, your definition is even more broad than mine! Ok going by your definition (which I think is quite reasonable), I think we're close to agreement. Appreciate the discussion

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#947

Post by tsukurimashou »

fblp wrote: post #513
the_arun wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is from Gemini - https://lens.usercontent.google.com/banana?agsi=CmdnbG9iYWw6...

Did it correctly follow the instructions? Don't know my pokemon well enough.

> Create a 8x8 contiguous grid

It failed at the very first instruction

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#948

Post by madrox »

paradoxyl wrote: post #562
madrox wrote: post #202

This seems like a great time to mention C2PA, a specification for positively affirming image sources. OpenAI participates in this, and if I load an image I had AI generate in a C2PA Viewer it shows ChatGPT as the source. Bad actors can strip sources out so it's a normal image (that's why it's positive affirmation), but eventually we should start flagging images with no source attribution as dangerous the way we flag…

What a dystopian, pro-tyranny ask. Horrifying.

The comments that aren't directly discussing the technical achievement here are bemoaning the destruction to society that AI generated images can cause, which is a fair criticism. I'm genuinely curious what you think the greater horror is. Or what a better solution might be.

Reddit blurs nsfw images by default. You can change that in settings. I don't see what it so terrible about the idea of doing this with untrusted image sources.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#949

Post by madrox »

debazel wrote: post #671
henry-j wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C2PA is actually an open protocol, à la SMTP. the whole spec is at https://spec.c2pa.org/ , available for anyone to implement.

The standard itself being open is irrelevant. I'm not sure why this is always brought up for attestation standards. It is fundamentally impossible to trust the signature from open-source software or hardware, so a signature from open-source software is essentially the same as no signature. The need for a trusted entity is even mentioned in your specification under the "attestation" section: https://spec.c2pa.org/spec…

We already have a centrally curated trust model in https. Browsers only treat connections as "secure" if they chain up to a root CA in their trust store. You can operate outside that system, but users will see warnings and friction. Some level of trust concentration isn’t new.

I'm curious if you think this is worse or not as bad as a best-case broad implementation c2pa...especially if there is a similar Let's Encrypt entity assisting with signatures.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#950

Post by teruakohatu »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #611
teruakohatu wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ... It is a little ambiguous (what exactly is a "3x3 cube") but I tried a bunch of variations and I simply could not get any Gemini models to produce the right output.

You can do it, but it takes two steps. Code is generally better to create such strict geometry (even from ambiguous prompts), while the image diffusion model is great for tuning style and lighting. https://chatgpt.com/share/69e88b5c-8628-83eb-8851-f587ef2c95...

Interesting. Did you have code execution enabled and did it actually execute a script?
Post reply on HN