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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#981

Post by stackedinserter »

apsurd wrote: post #294
SyneRyder wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea why you were down voted, I think that's exactly how this will get used. I'm already imagining this is how the local live indie band night I sometimes go to will generate poster images each week for the bands that are playing, whether to put up at the venue or post to social media. And the bands might be using it to design images to put on their t-shirts and other merch. I already know some indie bands using t…

Downvotes because nobody actually wants this. Those image uses serve a purpose to an external audience. The audience doesn't want this shit. Now of course I'm being dramatically absolute. I'm sure I already consume these things without knowing it. These things serve a function. Offloading to AI is the implementer admitting they can't be bothered to care whether it serves the function.

> Downvotes because nobody actually wants this. > The audience doesn't want this shit.

Speak for yourself.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#983

Post by 7tflutter7 »

Jtarii wrote: post #926
7tflutter7 wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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.

There is a 100% chance you will consume games / movies / media that was at least in part generated by AI, and enjoy it.

The idea that 50 years from you will still be holding out is hilarious.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#984

Post by torginus »

mrWiz wrote: post #830
torginus wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what happened to actual artists though - they seem to be doing fine. I'm sure many people as consumers dabbled in AI art, and reached the conclusion after hours that what they made never looked quite right. Then they found they could commission an actual artist to draw what they wanted for tens or hundreds of dollars, which is a very good price for getting exactly what you want without having to waste your t…

How'd you conclude that artists are doing fine? That doesn't match my experience or observations at all.

I know some pro artists (ppl doing work for big name companies, games, US film studios), either on a contract or employed basis.

They've always told me the same thing - the job is to hit the minimum acceptable level of quality (which to my untrained eye often looks high, but they reassure me, their work is in fact sloppy garbage), using whatever means necessary, even if that means AI.

They don't even hate AI mostly the way art Twitter does, they hate is because it gives unrealistic expectations to what costs how much, and its often not really possible to get useful results - at least that was the case a couple years ago, things might have evolved.

If AI were good enough, they would certainly use it.

As for Twitter people doing commissions, I dont have firsthand experience, but imo their biggest issue is that there are tons of artists from places like Latam or the Philippines who do high quality work and charge very little, and the people who commission don't care - this was the case well before AI.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#985

Post by MarchApril »

How many tech releases like these should happen and everyone would look at the person next to them, all agree that the age of human has come to an end, right at that moment. Don't dare to stop the train of progress, even when you're not on it.

The mechanized MC, they don't even try to fool you with an attractive host for these events anymore, stare at you through your screen, whispering directly into your ears with a voice of a late family member: "Sorry dear, you've had a good run. Rest easy now."

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#986

Post by peepee1982 »

jeroenhd wrote: post #746
peepee1982 wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because code is fundamentally not a creative work the way art is. Code "just" has to be correct, even if that correctness has demanded to come up with ideas. And as a software developer you usually get paid a nice salary to write it, no matter if you're typing it yourself or generate it with an AI. Art can't be generated. We can only generate artefacts mimicking art styles. So far we have no AI generated images that…

Art can be generated perfectly fine. Only artists and connoisseurs care about details and art style. Most art is purchased by a business, and that business just wants a picture of a woman being happy next to a cake that looks similar enough to the other corporate pictures. Code can be art the same way writing can be. There's a big difference between artistic code and business code, the same way there's a big differen…

I don't mean to be mean, but I don't think you understand what Art is. For example, I don't consider a picture of a woman being happy next to a cake art. That's a decorative artefact. And I don't really consider myself a connoisseurs, nor do I particularly care about details or art style.

I'm not trying to be pretentious or precious about art. But I consider the process of creation to be as much a fundamental part of art as the resulting artefact. If I can't contextualize a work of art to a human's inner life - be it implicitly or through knowing about the artist - it's not really art to me.

Artistic code can be a work of art. But only if created by a human (in a way that humans make art), and I think the same principles should apply to it as any other medium of art. But that kind of code is so rare and insignificant compared to all other code being written and published, that I don't think it's worth watering down the discussion with it.

I would only consider AI generated output art, if the way to get there were a substantial artistic expression.

So I think visual arts and music fall in a different category because it's much more artistic, unconstrained, and personal by nature than code. Even if that difference sits on a spectrum. But on that spectrum they're worlds apart.

I struggle explaining my point of view better and hope I manage to get my point across at least to some extent.

Having said all that, I do consider training LLMs on other people's code without compensation wrong as well. Just not as wrong as I do with other stuff.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#987

Post by peepee1982 »

bananaflag wrote: post #741
makerofthings wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think that’s completely true, there is an art to code beyond it just being correct. There are a great many correct implementations of a program, but only some of them are really beautiful as well. Most people don’t see the code or appreciate this, but the difference between correct and art is clear to me when I see it.

Code can be beautiful or ugly but that doesn't make it art. Art is not just about beauty, it is about expressing the mind (feelings, experience etc) of the author. AI will never do that (except if it learns to express its own experiences, which would be art, but not something competing with human art; it would be like if we had contact with alien art).

I think that's the main thing many people who've never seriously made art or aren't deeply involved with it on an emotional and psychological level are unable to grasp.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#988

Post by peepee1982 »

makerofthings wrote: post #752
bananaflag wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Code can be beautiful or ugly but that doesn't make it art. Art is not just about beauty, it is about expressing the mind (feelings, experience etc) of the author. AI will never do that (except if it learns to express its own experiences, which would be art, but not something competing with human art; it would be like if we had contact with alien art).

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

I think most of us agree that writing code can be expressive. But I don't think that alone qualifies you code as art.

I have written code myself that I deem beautiful and expressive. But I'm also a musician, and making music (and listening to it deeply) has given me such intense, mystic experiences, that they dwarf anything I've ever experienced writing code. It's also much harder to make good music because it requires a kind of courage and psychological constitution that is simply not required for writing code.

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#989

Post by heddycrow »

7tflutter7 wrote: post #840
heddycrow wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Support continued development of AI in the open. Support use of local or small scale AI. Your usage, support, and attention matters.

Open source AI is even worse for copyright infringement lol. They have 0 filters.

Better the enemy you know than the one you do not. That false?

And how is it we know as much about closed models as we do about the open ones?

Re: ChatGPT Images 2.0

#990

Post by valarauko »

vunderba wrote: post #935
valarauko wrote: post #897

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's lovely. My own personal benchmark has been to ask the various models to generate a functional pair of novelty New Year's Eve glasses on a person, that don't just plonk the year onto the top of regular frames.

Thanks. That's a good one~ Lens type stuff that involves reflections/refraction is a neat challenge for generative models. I did some editing tests that involved replacing an apartment window with a mirror back when Nano-Banana Pro was released and was rather stunned by the results. https://mordenstar.com/blog/edits-with-nanobanana/#through-t...

That's great, though I wasn't even thinking at the scale of reflection or refraction. My test was if the image generators could come up with a novelty pair of glasses that incorporate the year digits into the shape of the frame itself with some whimsy, rather than just plop the numbers on top of regular boring frames. So something like [this](https://p.kagi.com/proxy/oardefault.jpg?c=-4THVYblKrsgkzFTNE...) rather than [this](https://p.kagi.com/proxy/2026-Glasses-4-Color-New-Year-Glass...). A lot of the initial designs just incorporated the numbers into the frames, with no consideration for relative placement to the eyes, completely obscuring vision. Additional prompting might lead to cutouts for the eyes, but that was unsatisfying. At least as of this past new year's eve, I couldn't get any of the image generators to give me something even passible. Images 2.0 also couldn't give anything acceptable till I gave it some examples.
Post reply on HN