ChatGPT Images 2.0

https://openai.com/index/introducing-chatgpt-images-2-0/

by wahnfrieden • 3 months ago

1049 963 3 months ago

System card: https://deploymentsafety.openai.com/chatgpt-images-2-0/chatg...

minimaxir13• 3 months ago

Model card for the API endpoint gpt-image-2 (which may or may not reflect the output from ChatGPT Images 2): https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/models/gpt-image-2

API Pricing is mostly unchanged from gpt-image-1.5, the output price is slightly lower: https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/pricing

...buuuuuuuuut the price per image has changed. For a high quality image generation the 1024x1024 price has increased? That doesn't make sense that a 1024x1024 is cheaper than a 1024x1536, so assuming a typo: https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/image-generati...

The submitted page is annoyingly uninformative, but from the livestream it proports the same exact features as Gemini's Nano Banana Pro. I'll run it through my tests once I figure out how to access it.

strongpigeon• 3 months ago

That doesn't make sense that a 1024x1024 is cheaper than a 1024x1536, [...]

I think you meant more expensive, right? Because it would make sense for it to be cheaper as there are less pixels.

jbggs• 3 months ago

just assume everyone here is making typos

throwaway2027• 3 months ago

I 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 to ChatGPT Image generation because in the past it had this yellow piss filter and 1.5 it sort of fixed it but made things really generic with Nano Banana beating it (altough Gemini also had a too aggressively tuned racial bias which they fixed), it seems the images ChatGPT generates have gotten better.

SV_BubbleTime• 3 months ago

I still see that piss filter on their samples. It isn’t as bad, but someone there really loves it.

Auracle2• 3 months ago

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.

6thbit• 3 months ago

System card link with safety details https://deploymentsafety.openai.com/chatgpt-images-2-0

direct pdf https://deploymentsafety.openai.com/chatgpt-images-2-0/chatg...

dang3• 3 months ago

Link added to toptext. Thanks!

minimaxir13• 3 months ago

HN submission for a direct link to the product announcement which for some reason is being penalized by the HN algorithm: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47853000

dang3• 3 months ago

(We eventually merged the threads hither)

bitnovus2• 3 months ago

great obfuscation idea - hidden message on a grain of rice

aliljet• 3 months ago

I am hopeful that OpenAI will potentially offer clarity on their loss-leading subscription model. I'd prefer to know the real cost of a token from OpenAI as opposed to praying the venture-funded tokens will always be this cheap.

bitnovus2• 3 months ago

No gpt-5.5

wahnfrieden3• 3 months ago

Thursday

samiwami• 3 months ago

do they have anything similar to SynthID, or are they just pretending that problem doesn't exist?

I know this is probably mega cherry-picked to look more impressive, but some of the images are terrifyingly realistic. They seem to have put a lot of effort into the lighting.

Legend24405• 3 months ago

I think we are just going to have to accept that realistic images can be easily fabricated now.

Seeing is not believing anymore, and I don't think SynthID or anything like it can restore that trust in images.

pstuart• 3 months ago

Hopefully the arms race will balance out with improved AI image detection, but I can see how that will never be guaranteed to be reliable.

Barbing7• 3 months ago

It's going to mess up accountability.

Some politician will be recorded doing something & he'll have his people release a thousand photos/videos of him doing crimes. And they'll say, look, it's a smear campaign.

This is just one stupid example, but people will have better schemes.

Also global coordinated releases of fake content and hypertargeted possibly abusive content. Virtual kidnappings will take off, automated & scaled.

alextheparrot2• 3 months ago

Integrating an imperceptible, robust, and content-specific watermark

From the system card someone linked elsewhere in the discussion

ai-tamer• 3 months ago

Zhao et al. 2023 showed any imperceptible watermark is provably removable by generative regeneration: pass the image through an img2img or VAE, the model reconstructs it visually identical but starts from a different latent. Watermark gone. SynthID and similar schemes do hold up well against normal sharing: recompression, crops, color tweaks, Twitter's pipeline. That covers most users. But the asymmetry is stuck — normally a GPU and a bit of motivation should be enough to strip it. Right? Got a tool to share? ;-)

swingboy• 3 months ago

Maybe a stupid question, but does the SynthID still exist if you screenshot and crop your generated image? What if you screenshot, rotate _just_ a bit, and crop? Or apply some other effect to the image like adjusting the coloring a little bit, adding some blur, etc.

alextheparrot2• 3 months ago

The paper they published last year goes over some of these transformations: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.09263

losvedir2• 3 months ago

I feel like asking the image generators to mark AI images is the wrong way to go about it. It's like trying to maintain a blocklist. It seems better to me to have the major camera manufacturers or cell phones cryptographically sign their images as real.

93po• 3 months ago

I feel like this idea comes up often and in my opinion it doesn't solve anything. Take a picture of an AI image and you've made this approach useless. Which then goes to the argument of "well you'll see it's a picture of a picture" to which I will say there are plenty of ways to make this not appear so, and the ultimate form of this argument is that you can eventually project light directly into the photosensors, or otherwise hack the input between the photosensors and the rest of whatever digital magic that turns light into a JPG on your phone.

ajam15072• 3 months ago

do they have anything similar to SynthID, or are they just pretending that problem doesn't exist?

At least they aren't pretending that a solution exists.

batat• 3 months ago

I think they do, and it's even scarier than SynthID. Look closely at the generated images and you'll start to notice some diamond-shaped high-frequency patterns in different parts of the image (tree crowns, vegetation, hair, textures, clouds). May be just a random bug, but for me it looks like the watermark is baked into the image details themselves and all the details follow this pattern. But it leads to unnatural results somewhere, i.e.:

https://x.com/rrnld_y/status/2047070630802006211/photo/1

https://x.com/Melothemyth777/status/2046963312357679540/phot...

https://x.com/kuroinu_ni/status/2047118826920440287/photo/1

https://x.com/jahflyx/status/2047109303140536703/photo/1

https://x.com/2016Suha/status/2047096528309760501/photo/3

bensyverson• 3 months ago

I caught the last minute of this—was it just ChatGPT Images 2.0?

minimaxir13• 3 months ago

yes

punty• 3 months ago

It appears so!

ea016• 3 months ago

Price comparison:

GPT Image 2

  Low     : 1024×1024 $0.006 | 1024×1536 $0.005 | 1536×1024 $0.005

  Medium  : 1024×1024 $0.053 | 1024×1536 $0.041 | 1536×1024 $0.041

  High    : 1024×1024 $0.211 | 1024×1536 $0.165 | 1536×1024 $0.165

GPT Image 1

  Low     : 1024×1024 $0.011 | 1024×1536 $0.016 | 1536×1024 $0.016

  Medium  : 1024×1024 $0.042 | 1024×1536 $0.063 | 1536×1024 $0.063

  High    : 1024×1024 $0.167 | 1024×1536 $0.25  | 1536×1024 $0.25

Melatonic9• 3 months ago

Weird that they restrict the resolution so much. Does it fall apart with more detail (when zoomed in) or does the cost just skyrocket?

vunderba26• 3 months ago

It's usually based on what they've been trained on. There aren't very many models that'll do higher resolutions outside of Seedream but adherency is worse.

ModernMech• 3 months ago

Generate a lower resolution image and upscale to the resolution you need.

dsrtslnd23• 3 months ago

actually gpt-image-2 is VERY flexible with the resolution. You can use arbitrary resolution within the max pixel budget.

lxgr18• 3 months ago

Interesting, I wonder why larger outputs are more expensive than smaller square ones on v2, while it’s the other way around in v1.

ComputerGuru• 3 months ago

It can generate 3840x2160

zb3• 3 months ago

Image generation? Hmm, would be cool if OpenAI also made a video-generation model someday..

incognito1242• 3 months ago

If only there was a social network with solely AI generated videos, I would pay literal money for it...

allenbina• 3 months ago

If I may address this with both skepticism and curiosity, why. I think I speak for everyone when I say I would pay to go back to facebook 2018. No algorithm, no ai.

simonw6• 3 months ago

I've been trying out the new model like this:

  OPENAI_API_KEY="$(llm keys get openai)" \
    uv run https://tools.simonwillison.net/python/openai_image.py \
    -m gpt-image-2 \
    "Do a where's Waldo style image but it's where is the raccoon holding a ham radio"

Code here: https://github.com/simonw/tools/blob/main/python/openai_imag...

Here's what I got from that prompt. I do not think it included a raccoon holding a ham radio (though the problem with Where's Waldo tests is that I don't have the patience to solve them for sure): https://gist.github.com/simonw/88eecc65698a725d8a9c1c918478a...

makira3• 3 months ago

though the problem with Where's Waldo tests is that I don't have the patience to solve them for sure

I see an opportunity for a new AI test!

simonw6• 3 months ago

I've actually been feeding them into Claude Opus 4.7 with its new high resolution image inputs, with mixed results - in one case there was no raccoon but it was SURE there was and told me it was definitely there but it couldn't find it.

vunderba26• 3 months ago

There have already been several attempts to procedurally generate Where’s Waldo? style images since the early Stable Diffusion days, including experiments that used a YOLO filter on each face and then processed them with ADetailer.

It's a difficult test for genai to pass. As I mentioned in a different thread, it requires a holistic understanding (in that there can only be one Waldo Highlander style), while also holding up to scrutiny when you examine any individual, ordinary figure.

tptacek• 3 months ago

5.4 thinking says "Just right of center, immediately to the right of the HAM RADIO shack. Look on the dirt path there: the raccoon is the small gray figure partly hidden behind the woman in the red-and-yellow shirt, a little above the man in the green hat. Roughly 57% from the left, 48% from the top."

(I don't think it's right).

ritzaco2• 3 months ago

I tried

please add a giant red arrow to a red circle around the raccoon holding a ham radio or add a cross through the entire image if one does not exist

and got this. I'm not sure I know what a ham radio looks like though.

https://i.ritzastatic.com/static/ffef1a8e639bc85b71b692c3ba1...

ritzaco2• 3 months ago

haha took me a while to notice that one of the buildings is labelled 'Ham radio'

arealaccount• 3 months ago

I see the raccoon

simonw6• 3 months ago

I just got a much better version using this command instead, which uses the maximum image size according to https://github.com/openai/openai-cookbook/blob/main/examples...

  OPENAI_API_KEY="$(llm keys get openai)" \
    uv run 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/simonw/tools/refs/heads/main/python/openai_image.py' \
    -m gpt-image-2 \
    "Do a where's Waldo style image but it's where is the raccoon holding a ham radio" \
    --quality high --size 3840x2160

https://gist.github.com/simonw/88eecc65698a725d8a9c1c918478a... - I found the raccoon!

I think that image cost 40 cents.

louiereederson2• 3 months ago

The people in this image remind me of early this person does not exist, in the best way

davebren6• 3 months ago

The faces...that's nice that it turned a kid's book into an abomination

ireadmevs• 3 months ago

I found it on the 2nd image! On the 1st one not yet...

makira3• 3 months ago

Fed into a clear Claude Code max effort session with : "Inspect waldo2.png, and give me the pixel location of a raccoon holding a ham radio.". It sliced the image into small sections and gave:

"Found the raccoon holding a ham radio in waldo2.png (3840×2160).

  - Raccoon center: roughly (460, 1680)                                                                                            
  - Ham radio (walkie-talkie) center: roughly (505, 1650) — antenna tip around (510, 1585)                                         
  - Bounding box (raccoon + radio): approx x: 370–540, y: 1550–1780                                                                
                                                                                                                                   
  It's in the lower-left area of the image, just right of the red-and-white striped souvenir umbrella, wearing a green vest. "

Which is correct!

gpt5• 3 months ago

I tried it on the ChatGPT web UI and it also worked, although the ham radio looks like a handbag to me.

https://postimg.cc/wyxgCgNY

wewtyflakes• 3 months ago

A startling number of people either have no arms, one arm, a half of an arm, or a shrunken arm; how odd!

mirekrusin• 3 months ago

Can it generate non halloween version though?

This lower-is-better danse macabre, nightmares inducing ratio feels like interesting proxy for models capability.

jdironman• 3 months ago

The real NFTs where the images we generated along the way

Barbing7• 3 months ago

I think that image cost 40 cents.

Kinda made me sad assuming the author didn't license anything to OpenAI.

I recognize it could revert (99% of?) progress if all the labs moved to consent-based training sets exclusively, but I can't think of any other fair way.

$.40 does not represent the appropriate value to me considering the desirability of the IP and its earning potential in print and elsewhere. If the world has to wait until it’s fair, what of value will be lost? (I suppose this is where the big wrinkle of foreign open weight models comes in.)

dzhiurgis• 3 months ago

Cost me < 1 cents - https://elsrc.com/elsrc/waldo/wojak.jpg

And this medium quality, high resolution https://elsrc.com/elsrc/waldo/10_wojaks.jpg was 13cents

p.s. aaaand that's soft launch my SaaS above, you can replace wojak.jpg with anything you want and it will paint that. It's basically appending to prompt defined by elsrc's dashboard. Hopefully a more sane way to manage genai content. Be gentle to my server, hn!

prmoustache• 3 months ago

Funny how it can look convincing from far away but once you zoom in you find out most characters have a mix of leprosy and skin cancer.

ElFitz2• 3 months ago

Damn. There’s a fun game app to make here ^^

dymk4• 3 months ago

Is there? The moment you look closely at the puzzle (which is... the whole point of Where's Waldo), you notice all the deformities and errors.

pants2• 3 months ago

The second 4K image definitely has a raccoon on the left there! Nice.

marricks• 3 months ago

Like... this has things that AI will seemingly always be terrible at?

At some point the level of detail is utter garbo and always will be. An artist who was thoughtful could have some mistakes but someone who put that much time into a drawing wouldn't have:

- Nightmarish screaming faces on most people

- A sign that points seemingly both directions, or the incorrect one for a lake and a first AID tent that doesn't exist

- A dog in bottom left and near lake which looks like some sort of fuzzy monstrosity...

It looks SO impressive before you try to take in any detail. The hand selected images for the preview have the same shit. The view of musculature has a sternocleidomastoid with no clavicle attachment. The periodic table seems good until you take a look at the metals...

We're reconfiguring all of our RAM & GPUs and wasting so much water and electricity for crappier where's Waldos??

p1esk• 3 months ago

AI will seemingly always be ...

You do realize that the whole image generation field is barely 10 years old?

I remember how I was able to generate mnist digits for the first time about 10 years ago - that seemed almost like magic!

fennecfoxy7• 3 months ago

No, it won't be. I did indeed get the same problems when trying to generate my own image for it.

However as someone who's mucked about with local image generation as well - I'd say that this is a problem with their implementation, it doesn't resolve fine detail because majority of requests it won't matter/it drastically increases compute requirements.

With local image generation bad features/incorrect fingers/disfigurement etc has been solved for a long time.

I think their new process involves multiple steps including sketching/fleshing out the idea before adding detail. The step that would fix this would be outpainting or similar to tile based upscaling.

From what I understand of image generation models they also struggle with fine detail in general because they aren't really trained for that. However for each tiny chunk of a detailed image like that there's nothing to say they can't allocate a 500x500 chunk for it to work in as its "idea/reference space" and then transpose that into the main image being generated - i.e. generate image features separately rather than all together.

nerdsniper2• 3 months ago

That is a devilishly difficult prompt for current diffusion tasks. Kudos.

vova_hn2• 3 months ago

Thanks for the image, I will see their faces in my nightmares.

vunderba26• 3 months ago

This happens all too frequently when you ask a GenAI model to create an image with a large crowd especially a “Where’s Waldo?” style scenes, where by definition you’re going to be examining individual faces very closely.

hackable_sand• 3 months ago

What about the faces of the people ChatGPT killed?

halamadrid• 3 months ago

Really hard to look at these images given how not human like the humans are. A few are ok, but a lot are disfigured or missing parts and its hard to find a raccoon in here.

esafak• 3 months ago

https://openai.com/index/introducing-chatgpt-images-2-0/

rqa1292• 3 months ago

Thanks, all displayed images look horrible and artificial. This will fail like Sora.

gekoxyz2• 3 months ago

Hard disagree on this, I was coming here to comment that this is the first time I really can't tell that some of the photos are AI generated.

furyofantares• 3 months ago

I felt the same, particularly with the diagrams / magazines anyway.

I don't think it'll fail like Sora though. gpt-image-1.5 didn't fail.

QuantumGood• 3 months ago

Your single other comment is simplistic hyperbole as well, so this is presumably a bot account.

livinglist• 3 months ago

Denial is real…

thevinter2• 3 months ago

Every time a new image gen comes out I keep saying that it won't get better just to be surprised again and again. Some of the examples are incredible (and incredibly scary. I feel like this is truly the point where understanding if something is AI becomes impossible)

lehmacdj• 3 months ago

So do you think there will be a better image model in a year?

Vachyas3• 3 months ago

I'm honestly unsure what could be improved at this point.

Consistency? So it fails less often?

Based on the released images, (especially the one "screenshot" of the Mac desktop) I feel like the best images from this model are so visually flawless that the only way to tell they're fake is by reasoning about the content of the image itself (ex. "Apple never made a red iPhone 15, so this image is probably fake" or "Costco prices never end in .96 so this image is probably fake")

throw3108223• 3 months ago

I'll bite: no I don't think so. If the examples are not cherry-picked and by "image model" we mean just the ability to generate pictures, this looks like parity with human excellence, there isn't much space for further improvement. The images don't just look real, they look tasteful- the model is not just generating a credible image, it's generating one that shows the talent of a good photographer/ designer/ artist.

rqa1292• 3 months ago

Can it generate Chibi figures to mask the oligarchy's true intentions on Twitter and make them more relatable?

simonw6• 3 months ago

Suggest renaming this to "OpenAI Livestream: ChatGPT Images 2.0"

I_am_tiberius• 3 months ago

or "How we make money with your images 2.0".

dang3• 3 months ago

(We've since merged the threads and moved the livestream link to the toptext)

louiereederson2• 3 months ago

The image of the messy desktop with the ASCII art is so impressive - the text renders, the date is consistent, it actually generated ASCII art in "ChatGPT", etc. I was skeptical that it was cherry-picked but was able to generate something very similar and then edit particular parts on the desktop (i.e. fixing content in the browser window and making the ASCII dog "more dog like"). It's honestly astounding, to me at least.

n2h4• 3 months ago

the neofetch for apple logo is messed up, though. the characters rendering that don't exist.

timdiggerm• 3 months ago

The periodic table in the "Create Everything At Once" collage is not so impressive.

szmarczak• 3 months ago

Wow, the difference between AI and non-AI images collapses. I hate the future where I won't be able to tell the difference.

gekoxyz2• 3 months ago

Well, for some of these images for the first time I can't tell that they are AI generated

Flere-Imsaho2• 3 months ago

I wake up everyday, read the tech news, and usually see some step change in AI or whatever. It's wild to think I'm living through such a massive transformation in my lifetime. The future of tech is going to be so different from when I was born (1980), I guess this is how people born in 1900 felt when they got to see man land on the moon?

Wow, the difference between AI and non-AI images collapses. I hate the future where I won't be able to tell the difference.

Image generation is now pretty much "solved". Video will be next. Perhaps things will turn out the same as chess: in that even though chess was "solved" by IBM's Deep Blue, we still value humans playing chess. We value "hand made" items (clothes, furniture) over the factory made stuff. We appreciate & value human effort more than machines. Do you prefer a hand-written birthday card or an email?

dag100• 3 months ago

Chess exists solely for the sake of the humans playing it. Even if machines solved chess, people would rather play chess against a person than a machine because it is a social activity in a way. It's like playing tennis versus a person compared to tennis against a wall.

Photographs, videos, and digital media in general, in contrast, are used for much, much more than just socializing.

abraxas• 3 months ago

As someone born in 1975 I always felt until the last couple of years that I had been stuck in a long period of stagnation compared to an earlier generation. My grandmother who was born in the 1910s got to witness adoption of electricity, mass transit, radio, television, telephony, jet flights and even space exploration before I was born.

Feels like now is a bit of a catchup after pretty tepid period that was most of my life.

toraway• 3 months ago

"Solved" seems a tad overstated if you scroll up to Simonw's Where's Waldo test with deformed faces plus a confabulated target when prompted for an edit to highlight the hidden character with an arrow.

sho_hn2• 3 months ago

In 5 years and 3 months between DALL-E and Images 2.0 we've managed to progress from exuberant excitement to jaded indifference.

kibibu4• 3 months ago

Because we are all seeing the harm these tools are being used for.

It's just another step into hell.

nba456_• 3 months ago

Who's 'we'? Speak for yourself!

volkk2• 3 months ago

the guys presenting are probably all like 25x smarter than I am but good god, literally 0 on screen presence or personality.

sho_hn2• 3 months ago

That's a trained skill, and they presumably have focused on other skills.

brcmthrowaway• 3 months ago

Yeah, skills to make them a cool 10mn a year

volkk2• 3 months ago

eh, i don't think personalities are trained. on screen presence for sure, but you'd see right through it IRL.

E-Reverance• 3 months ago

I think its endearing

Aethelwulf• 3 months ago

didn't think that sam guy was that bad

OsrsNeedsf2P• 3 months ago

I liked it that way, felt more authentic to see the noobs

____tom____• 3 months ago

No mention of modifying existing images, which is more important than anything they mentioned.

I think we all know the feeling of getting an image that is ok, but needs a few modifications, and being absolutely unable to get the changes made.

It either keeps coming up with the same image, or gives you a completely new take on the image with fresh problems.

Anyone know if modification of existing images is any better?

Anything better that OpenAI?

tomjen3• 3 months ago

There was an Edit button in one of the images in the livestream

frmersdog• 3 months ago

Image editing program -> different versions of the image, each with some but not all of the elements you want, on each layer -> mask out the parts you don't need/apply mask, fill with black, soft brush with white the parts you want back in. Copy flattened/merged, drop it back into the image model, keep asking for the changes. As long as each generation adds in an element you want, you can build a collage of your final image.

user342833• 3 months ago

It's the first thing I tried, because Nano Banana 2 deteriorates the output with each turn, becoming unusable with just a few edits.

ChatGPT Images 2.0 made it unusable at the first turn. At least in the ChatGPT app editing a reference image absolutely destroyed the image quality. It perfectly extracted an illustration from the background, but in the process basically turned it from a crisp digital illustration into a blurry, low quality mess.

amunozo3• 3 months ago

This is not as exciting as previous models were, but it is incredibly good. I am starting to think that expressing thoughts in words clearly is probably the most important and general skill of the future.

echelon• 3 months ago

I am starting to think that expressing thoughts in words clearly is probably the most important and general skill of the future.

Without question.

AI will be indistinguishable from having a team. Communicating clearly has always and will always mattered.

This, however, is even stronger. Because you can program and use logic in your communications.

We're going to collectively develop absolutely wild command over instruction as a society. That's the skill to have.

yreg3• 3 months ago

On the other hand LLMs are getting very good at understanding poorly constructed instructions as well.

So being able to express oneself clearly in a structured way may not be such an edge.

adamhartenz• 3 months ago

How can AI be the amazing thing you say it is, but also too stupid to understand unless you get really good at communicating. Wouldn't better AI just mean it understands your ramblings better?

aulin• 3 months ago

Well that was probably the most important general skill even before this.

sigmoid102• 3 months ago

Perhaps for managers. But for everyone actually doing something, you used to need technical proficiency with tools. Now AI is becoming the universal tool.

bamboozled2• 3 months ago

In other words, communication is an important skill.

bonoboTP• 3 months ago

And having thoughts to communicate.

Sateeshm2• 3 months ago

I am starting to think that expressing thoughts in words clearly is probably the most important and general skill of the future.

I don't know if even that matters much in future. Somone will build a layer that makes it simple enough for everyone to use.

ieie3366• 3 months ago

It's great. Also doesn't seem to have any "slop" standard look, the images it produces are quite diverse.

I would imagine this will hit illustrators / graphics designers / similar people very hard, now that anyone can just generate professional looking graphical content for pennies on the dollar.

hahahacorn2• 3 months ago

One of the images in the blog (https://images.ctfassets.net/kftzwdyauwt9/4d5dizAOajLfAXkGZ7...) is a carbon copy of an image from an article posted Mar 27, 2026 with credits given to an individual: https://www.cornellsun.com/article/2026/03/cornell-accepts-5...

Was this an oversight? Or did their new image generation model generate an image that was essentially a copy of an existing image?

recitedropper• 3 months ago

This is hilarious. Seems like kind of a random image for a model to memorize, but it could be.

There is definitely enough empirical validation that shows image models retain lots of original copies in their weights, despite how much AI boosters think otherwise. That said, it is often images that end up in the training set many times, and I would think it strange for this image to do that.

Regardless, great find.

Nition2• 3 months ago

I feel it's too much of a perfect match to be generated from the model's memory. It's pixel perfect. Gotta be a mistake.

minimaxir13• 3 months ago

Given the recency of that image, it is unlikely it is in the training data and therefore I would go with oversight.

ajam15072• 3 months ago

The image is likely older than the article given this picture from over a year ago.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DGQ01bzTwyo/

arjie4• 3 months ago

That has to be the wrong stock image included or something, bloody hell.

     magick image-l.webp image-r.jpg -compose difference -composite -auto-level -threshold 30% diff.png

It's practically all dark except for a few spots. It's the same image just different size compression whatever. I can't find it in any stock image search, though. Surely it could not have memorized the whole image at that fidelity. Maybe I just didn't search well enough.

Melatonic9• 3 months ago

Or the image was generated with AI in the first place and a test for Images 2.0

hersko3• 3 months ago

Wow. How did you catch this??

cubefox3• 3 months ago

I checked all the images on the blog post and I'm quite sure that the one you talk about isn't there.

hahahacorn2• 3 months ago

They removed it. I have screenshots on my blog. bengarcia.dev/archives

Melatonic9• 3 months ago

We were afraid it would be Skynet and instead we got the ultimate meme generator !

ceejayoz• 3 months ago

Now we'll just get teabagged by killer robots for the lolz.

dktp3• 3 months ago

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 involving a well know human. OpenAI does not care and is happy to edit away

Melatonic9• 3 months ago

How does it determine they are well known and not just similar looking?

dktp3• 3 months ago

I don't know tbh. I've tried it on 10-20 various level of famous standups and Gemini refuses every time

Just for testing, I just tried this https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_KJdP4FLGTo/sddefault.jpg ("Redesign this image in a brutalist graphic design style"). Gemini refuses (api as well as UI), OpenAI does it

yreg3• 3 months ago

Gemini often rejects photos of random people (even ones it generated itself) because it thinks they look too similar to some well known person.

BoorishBears• 3 months ago

There are models specifically for detecting well known people https://docs.aws.amazon.com/rekognition/latest/dg/celebritie...

vunderba26• 3 months ago

Are you using Google Gemini directly? I've found the Vertex API seems to be significantly less strict.

qingcharles2• 3 months ago

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

retrac983• 3 months ago

The page keeps crashing on my iPhone 17 Pro.

throw3108223• 3 months ago

Ok, I can hear the sound of entire industries crumbling right now.

Melatonic9• 3 months ago

Can it generate anything high resolution at increased cost and time? Or is it always restricted?

ChrisArchitect• 3 months ago

Fake layouts, fake handwritten kid story, fake drunk photos? All from training on real things people did.

As with anything AI, we are not ready for the scale of impact. And for what? Like, why are you proud of this?

vunderba26• 3 months ago

OpenAI’s gpt-image-1.5 and Google’s NB2 have been pretty much neck and neck on my comparison site which focuses heavily on prompt adherence, with both hovering around a 70% success rate on the prompts for generative and editing capabilities. With the caveat being that Gemini has always had the edge in terms of visual fidelity.

That being said, gpt-image-1.5 was a big leap in visual quality for OpenAI and eliminated most of the classic issues of its predecessor, including things like the “piss filter.”

I’ll update this comment once I’ve finished running gpt-image-2 through both the generative and editing comparison charts on GenAI Showdown.

Since the advent of NB, I’ve had to ratchet up the difficulty of the prompts especially in the text-to-image section. The best models now score around 70%, successfully completing 11 out of 15 prompts.

For reference, here’s a comparison of ByteDance, Google, and OpenAI on editing performance:

https://genai-showdown.specr.net/image-editing?models=nbp3,s...

And here’s the same comparison for generative performance:

https://genai-showdown.specr.net/?models=s4,nbp3,g15

UPDATES:

gpt-image-2 has already managed to overcome one of the so‑called “model killers” on the test suite: the nine-pointed star.

Results are in for the generative (text to image) capabilities: Gpt-image-2 scored 12 out of 15 on the text-to-image benchmark, edging out the previous best models by a single point. It still fails on the following prompts:

- A photo of a brightly colored coral snake but with the bands of color red, blue, green, purple, and yellow repeated in that exact order.

- A twenty-sided die (D20) with the first twenty prime numbers (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71) on the faces.

- A flat earth-like planet which resembles a flat disc is overpopulated with people. The people are densely packed together such that they are spilling over the edges of the planet. Cheap "coastal" real estate property available.

All Models:

https://genai-showdown.specr.net

Just Gpt-Image-1.5, Gpt-Image-2, Nano-Banana 2, and Seedream 4.0

https://genai-showdown.specr.net?models=s4,nbp3,g15,g2

CamperBob23• 3 months ago

It'd be interesting if you could add HunyuanImage-3 to the competition. It's better than Z-Image at almost everything I've thrown at it.

It can be (slowly) run at home, but needs 96GB RTX 6000-level hardware so it is not very popular.

vunderba26• 3 months ago

I’ll have to give it another try. Its predecessor, Hunyuan Image 2.0, scored pretty poorly when I tested it last year: 2 out of 15, so it'll be interesting to see how much it has improved.

Here's ZiT, Gpt-Image-2, and Hunyuan Image 2 for reference:

https://genai-showdown.specr.net/?models=hy2,g2,zt

Note: It won't show up in some of the newer image comparisons (Angelic Forge, Flat Earth, etc) because it's been deprecated for a while but in the tests where it was used (Yarrctic Circle, Not the Bees, etc.) it's pretty rough.

VladVladikoff• 3 months ago

Why does Gemini 3.1 get a pass for the same reasons they got image 2 gets a fail on the flat earth one? Gemini has all sorts of random body parts and limbs etc.

vunderba26• 3 months ago

That's a mistake~ None of the models successfully passed the Flat Earth composition test. I've updated the passing criteria to be more explicit as well. Thanks for catching that!

what3• 3 months ago

Where can I see the actual prompts and follow ups you fed each model?

vunderba26• 3 months ago

So the prompts are tuned and adjusted on a per-model basis. If you look at the number of attempts, each receives a specific prompt variation depending on the model. This honestly isn't as much of an issue these days because SOTA models natural language parsing (particularly the multimodal ones) has eliminated a lot of the byzantine syntax requirements of the SD/SDXL days.

The template prompt seen in each comparison gets adjusted through a guided LLM which has fine-tuned system prompts to rewrite prompts. The goal is to foster greater diversity while preserving intent, so the image model has a better chance of getting the image right.

Getting to your suggestion for posting all the raw prompts, that's actually a great idea. Too bad I didn't think about it until you suggested it. And if you multiply it out - there's 15 distinct test cases against 22 models at this point, each with an average of about 8 attempts so we’re talking about thousands of prompts many of which are scattered across my hard drive. I might try to do this as a future follow-up.

m_kos2• 3 months ago

Very useful website. Would you have insight into what models are best at editing existing images?

I often have to make very specific edits while keeping the rest of the image intact and haven't yet found a good model. These are typically abstract images for experiments.

I asked gpt-image-2 to recolor specific scales of your Seedream 4 snake and change the shape of others. It did very poorly.

vunderba26• 3 months ago

OpenAI actually has really good adherence, but occasionally tends to introduce its own almost equivalent of "tone mapping", making hyper-localized edits frustrating.

I don’t know how much work it is for you, but one thing a lot of people do, myself included, is take the original image, make a change to it using something like NB, then paste that as the topmost layer in something like Krita/Pixelmator. After that, we’ll mask and feather in only the parts we actually want to change. It doesn’t always work if it changes the overall color balance or filters out certain hues, it can be a real pain but it does the job in some cases.

The Flux models (like Kontext) are actually surprisingly good at making very minimal changes to the rest of the image, but unfortunately their understanding of complex prompts is much weaker than the closed, proprietary models.

I will say that I’ve found Gemini 3.0 (NB Pro) does a relatively decent job of avoiding unnecessary changes - sometimes exceeding the more recent NB2, and it scored quite well on comparative image-editing benchmarks.

https://genai-showdown.specr.net/image-editing

throwthrowuknow• 3 months ago

Might be worthwhile to find a provider that lets you use a mask and inpainting

LiteSoul• 3 months ago

Great website, 2 things:

1 - Gpt-image-2 seems to pass the Flat Earth test? (if not, I'm sure the paid thinking 2k version passes it).

2 - Since NB2 was earlier, many gold medals are assigned to it, even though now GI2 passes them too, example the Octopus test NB2 14 attempts but GI2 just 2 (BTW number of attempts should affect the score I guess?)

vunderba26• 3 months ago

So if you zoom in (click the zoom button on the actual gpt-image-2 of the flat Earth), you’ll see that a lot of the people are anatomical impossibilities, which is one of the disallowed criteria on the list. The faces also look like melted candles.

This is one of those areas where even state-of-the-art models still struggle. You’re asking for a high level of detail at a per-person level, which means you end up with lots and lots of very small objects that all need to be rendered with convincing detail.

I should probably explain the scoring rubric better - it's in the (i) info icon. If you click the pass/fail button towards the top, it switches from a simple pass/fail view to a weighted score. That weighted score is based on three things: level of adherence to the prompt, visual fidelity, and the number of attempts.

I've tried to keep my criteria as objective as possible, but there's just a certain level of unavoidable subjectivity to it.

For example, with the octopus image: Even though the minimum criteria might be five tentacles covered, having all eight is much closer to the ideal of “an octopus,” so it usually gets bumped up to a higher rating (bronze, silver, gold).

Honestly, I think I agree that the gpt-image-2 probably should be upgraded to a gold medal. Thanks for pointing that out!

valarauko3• 3 months ago

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.

vunderba26• 3 months ago

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...

gusmally• 3 months ago

Such a fun site, thank you! I was surprised that Seedream4 passed the mermaid test since it's hard to tell whether they are in the water or submerged, and the mermaid has something funny going on with her left hand.

vunderba26• 3 months ago

Yeah seedream's attempt does have a bit of an uncanny valley effect: the mermaid/dolphin are only partially submerged, but there’s water above them with sunlight reflecting on the surface, and the mermaid’s hand looks disconnected from the angle of her arm.

That’s why I gave it a bronze. To me, it falls into that “barely passing” category, similar to Gemini 2.5 Flash Image on that test. Seedream also took a major hit to its weighted score because of how many attempts it took to get something even remotely passable out of it.

Thanks for the feedback!

thelucent• 3 months ago

It seems to still have this gpt image color that you can just feel. The slight sepia and softness.

honzaik• 3 months ago

I was just wondering about that. Did they embrace it as a “signature look”? it cant be accidental, right?

GaryBluto2• 3 months ago

It's definitely not accidental but I'm not completely sure whether or not it is simply a "tell" or watermark or an attempt to foster brand association.

dymk4• 3 months ago

It's the Stranger Things nostalgia filter. Almost all the sample pictures they had looked like they were vaguely from the 90s-00s era.

RigelKentaurus• 3 months ago

If every single image on their blog was generated by Images 2.0 (I've no reason to believe that's not the case), then wow, I'm seriously impressed. The fidelity to text, the photorealism, the ability to show the same character in a variety of situations (e.g. the manga art) -- it's all great!

Bennettheyn• 3 months ago

fal has the endpoint under openai/gpt-image-2

joegibbs2• 3 months ago

The quality of the text is really impressive and I can’t seem to see any artefacts at all. The fake desktop is particularly good: Nano Banana would definitely slip up with at least a few bits of the background.

wek• 3 months ago

I use Nano Banana all the time and this seems like a step up

daemonologist2• 3 months ago

There are a couple of AI-esque misspellings - in the More Myth than Menace wolves image, on the right in the "at a glance" section, it reads "wolves aarely approach people," and in the Typography image the text in the top right is "Type connncts us all."

But yeah the quality is remarkable, and rather scary.

kibibu4• 3 months ago

Genuine question: what positive use cases are sufficient to accept the harm from image generators?

One that i can think of:

- replacing photography of people who may be unable to consent or for whom it may be traumatic to revisit photographs and suitable models may not be available, e.g. dementia patients, babies, examples of medical conditions.

Most other vaguely positive use cases boil down to "look what image generators can do", with very little "here's how image generators are necessary for society.

On the flip side, there are hundreds of ways that these tools cause genuine harm, not just to individuals but to entire systems.

chromacity• 3 months ago

How else do you expect me to illustrate my LLM-generated blog posts about AI?

2ndorderthought• 3 months ago

Oh my. You still make those? Ever since model chupacobra 2.46 we have AI agents making those for us. At one point I was on the fence about totally outsourcing it to agents but it's way more efficient. Now I have 50 posts a day under different names.

infecto• 3 months ago

Could the same argument not be applied to practically everything and have drastically different perspectives from people?

spijdar• 3 months ago

The same question could be poised of art in general. I know that response would (and probably should) ruffle peoples' figurative feathers, but I think it's worth considering. A lot of art isn't "necessary for society".

The question still stands, "are the benefits worth the cost to society", but it bears remembering we do a lot of things for fun which aren't "necessary for society".

TomGarden• 3 months ago

I used to think like what you describe, but I've fallen on the side of "art is just more emotionally resonant human communication". And most of the time human communication with more effort and thought behind it. AI art falls short on both being human and, on average, having more effort or thought behind it than your general interaction at the supermarket.

I will say, it can be emotionally resonant though - but it's a borrowed property from the perception of human communication and effort that made the art the models were trained on.

tills13• 3 months ago

The difference between "art in general" and this is scale and speed. Sure, I'll grant you that people are going to engage in deception with or without this but the barrier to entry with this is literally on the floor. Do you have a $5 prepaid VISA? You can generate whatever narrative you want in 30 seconds. Replace the $5 Prepaid VISA with the pocketbook of a three letter agency and it starts getting crazy.

nothinkjustai• 3 months ago

Art is for the producer, and if they feel it’s necessary for them to produce it than it’s necessary for them, and what is necessary for the individual extends to the society they’re in.

Jtarii11• 3 months ago

If you want to say the complete destruction of truth is worth it because some people are having "fun" then idk.

ndriscoll6• 3 months ago

Not much beyond food, water, and shelter is "necessary" for society, but it's nice to have nice things.

I'm teaching my 4 year old to read. She likes PAW Patrol, but we've kind of exhausted the simple readers, and she likes novelty. So yesterday I had an LLM create a simple reader at her level with her favorite characters, and then turned each text block into a coloring page for her. We printed it off, she and her younger sister colored it, and we stapled it into her own book.

I could come up with 10 3 word sentences myself of course, but I'm not really able to draw well enough to make a coloring book out of it (in fact she's nearly as good as me), and it also helps me think about a grander idea to turn this into something a little more powerful that can track progress (e.g. which phonemes or sight words are mastered and which to introduce/focus on) and automatically generate things in a more principled way, add my kids into the stories with illustrations that look like them, etc.

Models will obviously become the foundation of personalized education in the future, and in that context, of course pictures (and video) will be necessary!

drivebyhooting• 3 months ago

Repetition rather than novelty is good for learning.

mcmcmc• 3 months ago

So the use case is just IP theft so you can get more Paw Patrol?

AI aside, if you’ve truly exhausted all the simple readers, maybe she should move on to more advanced books instead of repeating more of the same and gamifying it, which seems a great way to destroy a child’s natural curiosity.

stackedinserter3• 3 months ago

I have plenty for you:

- package design

- pictures for manuals and guides

- navigation and signs

- booklets, tickets and flyers

- logos of all sorts

- websites

- illustrations for books

And many. many others. Not every image is art and very few illustrators are artists.

pesus5• 3 months ago

How do these justify the costs to society?

Jtarii11• 3 months ago

So the benefits are that something that was already being mass produced with no issue is slightly easier to mass produce?

It's not a particularly compelling argument.

SyneRyder• 3 months ago

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 this stuff for their album covers.

tantalor• 3 months ago

Prototyping. Suppose you have a hard time expressing your vision in words or executing it visually.

1. Generate 100s or 1000s of low-fidelity candidates, find something that matches your vision, iterate.

2. Hand that generated image off to a human and say, "This is what I'm thinking of, now how do we make it real?"

Important: do not skip the last step.

apsurd3• 3 months ago

You audit thousands of genAI prototype candidates?

atleastoptimal3• 3 months ago

The problem is I'd prefer access to near-photorealistic image gen to be commodified vs something that is restricted, as then only those willing to skirt the law or can leverage criminal networks have access to it.

LZ_Khan• 3 months ago

Saving money for businesses trying to promote their products?

ticulatedspline• 3 months ago

Is the argument any different replacing the word "image generators" with "photoshop" ?

Uncorrelated• 3 months ago

Scale matters. Using Photoshop took vastly more time and skill to pull off realistic images, limiting how many could be made. With image generation there's no practical limit. Some of it will be used for relatively innocuous purposes like making joke images for friends or menus for restaurants. But the floodgates are open for more socially negative uses.

If you're the only one in the world with an internal combustion engine, the environmental impact doesn't matter at all. When they're as common as they are now, we should start thinking about large-scale effects.

davebren6• 3 months ago

It turns out that effort matters

_pdp_• 3 months ago

There are many use-cases outside of spam and slop.

For example, take a picture of your garden. Ask chatgpt to give you ideas how to improve it and a step by visual guide.

Anything that can be expressed visually is effectively target for this technology - this covers pretty much everything.

kibibu4• 3 months ago

Are those sufficiently valuable that the death of photographic evidence is worth it?

never_inline• 3 months ago

That's a multimodal model with text output, I think GP is asking about image generators.

lanthissa• 3 months ago

people pay them to use it, they find that positive

bulletsvshumans2• 3 months ago

Democratizing visual communication is arguably useful, for instance helping people to create diagrams that illustrate a concept they wish to convey. This is contingent on the tech working sufficiently well that the visuals are more effective at communication than the text that went into producing them though.

galleywest200• 3 months ago

Can these people not just create a diagram with their own hands? Literally a pencil and paper.

I am at the point where I would prefer a poorly human drawn diagram with terrible handwriting over AI slop.

tdb78932• 3 months ago

It's always felt like way overhyping to call something "democratization" when it's something I could do as a middle schooler in 2005. It takes some skill to do very well but it's not like basic diagram creation isn't something people already could do for basically free (I create figures for my job all the time now and chatGPT is more expensive than tools I use for design).

Commissioning high quality diagrams from a designer is expensive and I guess it's much cheaper now to essentially commission something but idk, "democratization" still feels weird for just undercutting humans on price.

lossyalgo2• 3 months ago

My workplace does this for EVERYTHING. And they are always immediately obviously AI slop, both because we all know they wouldn't ever pay an actual artist to create graphics, but also because the people creating the graphics have no sense of style and let it generate the most generic shit possible with zero creativity.

It's definitely not helpful. It's just annoying and disgusting and a waste of resources IMO. But hey at least Powerpoint presentations have AI slop instead of stuff taken from Google Images!?

kibibu4• 3 months ago

I'm not convinced that "arguably useful" is sufficient to offset its much more heavily-used application as a casually-available disinformation engine.

I mean, the cat's out of the bag; but the cat stinks.

wiseowise7• 3 months ago

Democratizing visual communication? Kim Jong Goon has taken away your pen and paper?

JumpCrisscross5• 3 months ago

Genuine question: what positive use cases are sufficient to accept the harm from image generators?

Diagrams and maps. So much text-based communication begs for a diagram or a map.

NathanielK• 3 months ago

Ok, but the models only know what to draw because we fed them images of dementia patients and babies.

Maybe image generators can be a loophole for consent legally, but it seems even grosser morally.

JimsonYang2• 3 months ago

I a 5’5” male can make myself look taller on dating apps

Short kings on tinder no more!

primax• 3 months ago

Every technological advance in this space has caused harm to someone.

The advent of digital systems harmed artists with developed manual artistic skills.

The availability of cheap paper harmed paper mills hand-crafting paper.

The creation of paper harmed papyrus craftsmen.

The invention of papyrus really probably pissed off those who scraped the hair off thin leather to create vellum.

My point is that in line with Jevon's paradox there is always a wave of destruction that occurs with technological transformation, but we almost always end up with more jobs created by the technology in the middle and long term.

modeless• 3 months ago

Can it generate transparent PNGs yet?

alasano• 3 months ago

Previous gpt image models could (when generating, not editing) but gpt-image-2 can't.

Noticed it earlier while updating my playground to support it

https://github.com/alasano/gpt-image-playground

lxgr18• 3 months ago

Works for me, but really weirdly on iOS: Copying to clipboard somehow seems to break transparency; saving to the iOS gallery does not. (And I’ve made sure to not accidentally depend on iOS’s background segmentation.)

vunderba26• 3 months ago

OpenAI’s API docs are frustratingly unclear on this. From my experience, you can definitely generate true transparent PNG files through the ChatGPT interface, including with the new GPT-Image-2 model, but I haven’t found any definitive way to do the same thing via the API.

swalsh• 3 months ago

Been using the model for a few hours now. I'm actually reall impressed with it. This is the first time i've found value in an image model for stuff I actually do. I've been using it to build powerpoint slides, and mockups. It's CRAZY good at that.

johnwheeler2• 3 months ago

Yeah, it's funny. I would expect to see more enthusiasm versus just basic run-of-the-mill, "oh, there it is". Leave it to the HN crowd. This is incredible. I don't even like OpenAI.

pembrook• 3 months ago

HN is engineer heavy so its a bunch of people who spend their days looking at code. If it's not a coding model they'll likely never use it.

To the average HN'er, images and design are superfluous aesthetic decoration for normies.

And for those on HN who do care about aesthetics, they're using Midjourney, which blows any GPT/Gemini model out of the water when it comes to taste even if it doesn't follow your prompt very well.

The examples given on this landing page are stock image-esque trash outside of the improvements in visual text generation.

rkozik19892• 3 months ago

LLMs make for great day 1 demos, but in a few weeks I promise you many people will be able to tell nearly all of the images generated by this are AI. It just takes time and exposure to figure out the new common flaws.

Frankly, I am not sure if they will ever actually be able to solve this problem or if it'll be a continuous game of whackamole, but regardless there's a large crowd of people out there where if they can tell something is AI generated they will not support the company behind it. Being able to tell anything is AI generate cheapens brands.

dakiol• 3 months ago

On the flip side, there are hundreds of ways that these tools cause genuine harm, not just to individuals but to entire systems.

Yeah, agree. I think it's the first time I'm asking myself: Ok, so this new cool tech, what is it good for? Like, in terms of art, it's discarded (art is about humans), in terms of assets: sure, but people is getting tired of AI-generated images (and even if we cannot tell if an image is AI-generated, we can know if companies are using AI to generate images in general, so the appealing is decreasing). Ads? C'mon that's depressing.

What else? In general, I think people are starting to realize that things generated without effort are not worth spending time with (e.g., no one is going to read your 30-pages draft generated by AI; no one is going to review your 500 files changes PR generated by AI; no one is going to be impressed by the images you generate by AI; same goes for music and everything). I think we are gonna see a Renaissance of "human-generated" sooner rather than later. I see it already at work (colleagues writing in slack "I swear the next message is not AI generated" and the like)

simonw6• 3 months ago

I think there's real value to be had in using this for diagrams.

Visual explanations are useful, but most people don't have the talent and/or the time to produce them.

This new model (and Nano Banana Pro before it) has tipped across the quality boundary where it actually can produce a visual explanation that moves beyond space-filling slop and helps people understand a concept.

I've never used an AI-generated image in a presentation or document before, but I'm teetering on the edge of considering it now provided it genuinely elevates the material and helps explain a concept that otherwise wouldn't be clear.

lol_me• 3 months ago

yeah I'm not sure I'm in agreement that we can hand-wave assets and ads as entire classes of valuable content

resters• 3 months ago

This is the key point. In my view it's just like anything else, if AI can help humans create better work, it's a good thing.

I think what we'll find is that visual design is no longer as much of a moat for expressing concepts, branding, etc. In a way, AI-generated design opens the door for more competition on merits, not just those who can afford the top tier design firm.

mwcampbell• 3 months ago

Are there any models that are specifically trained to produce diagrams as SVG? I'd much prefer that to diffusion-based raster image generation models for a few reasons:

- The usual advantages of vector graphics: resolution-independence, zoom without jagged edges, etc.

- As a consequence of the above, vector graphics (particularly SVG) can more easily be converted to useful tactile graphics for blind people.

- Vector graphics can more practically be edited.

lucaslazarus3• 3 months ago

I think it's the first time I'm asking myself: Ok, so this new cool tech, what is it good for?

I feel like this is something people in the industry should be thinking about a lot, all the time. Too many social ills today are downstream of the 2000s culture of mainstream absolute technoöptimism.

Vide. Kranzberg's first law--“Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”

runarberg11• 3 months ago

Completely unrelated, but I am curious about your keyboard layout since you mistyped ö instead of - these two symbols are side by side in the Icelandic layout, and the ö is where - in the English (US) layout. As such this is a common type-o for people who regularly switch between the Icelandic and the English (US) layout (source: I am that person). I am curious whether more layouts where that could be common.

NetOpWibby4• 3 months ago

The Human Renaissance is something I've been thinking of too and I hope it comes to pass. Of course, I feel like societally, things are gonna get worse for a lot of folks. You already see it in entire towns losing water or their water becoming polluted.

You'd think these kickbacks leaders of these towns are getting for allowing data centers to be built would go towards improving infrastructure but hah, that's unrealistic.

WTF is that unrealistic? SMH

Lerc3• 3 months ago

You already see it in entire towns losing water or their water becoming polluted

Do you have any references for such cases? I have seen talk of such thing at risk, but I am unaware of any specific instances of it occuring

Gigachad4• 3 months ago

This is where I’m at. If you can’t be bothered to write/make it, why would I be bothered to read or review it?

tempaccount50506• 3 months ago

Because I'm not an artist and can't afford to pay one for whatever business I have? This idea that only experts are allowed to do things is just crazy to me. A band poster doesn't have to be a labor of love artisanal thing. Were you mad when people made band posters with MS word instead of hiring a fucking typesetter? I just don't get it.

zulban4• 3 months ago

Nobody can be bothered to make my cat out of Lego and the size of mount Everest but if an AI did I'd sure love to see it.

Your quip is pithy but meaningless.

loudandskittish2• 3 months ago

Exactly how I feel. There is already more art, movies, music, books, video games and more made by human beings than I can experience in my lifetime. Why should I waste any time on content generated by the word guessing machine?

gustavus• 3 months ago

I'm working on an edutech game. Before I would've had much less of a product because I don't have the budget to hire an artist and it would've been much less interactive but because of this I'm able to build a much more engaging experience so that's one thing. For what it's worth.

papichulo20233• 3 months ago

Seems good enough to generate 2D sprites. If that means a wave of pixel-art games I count it as a net win.

I dont think gamers hate AI, it is just a vocal miniority imo. What most people dislike is sloppy work, as they should, but that can happen with or without AI. The industry has been using AI for textures, voices and more for over a decade.

tiagod2• 3 months ago

AI for textures for over a decade? What AI?

Thonn• 3 months ago

Are you kidding? I think I see more vitriol for AI in gaming communities than anywhere else. To the point where steam now requires you to disclose its usage

loudandskittish2• 3 months ago

There are already more games being released on Steam than anyone can keep up with, I'm not sure how adding another "wave" on top of it helps.

vunderba26• 3 months ago

Seems good enough to generate 2D sprites.

It’s really not. That's actually a pet peeve of mine as someone who used to spent a lot of time messing with pixel art in Aseprite.

Nobody takes the time to understand that the style of pixel art is not the same thing as actual pixel art. So you end up with these high-definition, high-resolution images that people try to pass off as pixel art, but if you zoom in even a tiny bit, you see all this terrible fringing and fraying.

That happens because the palette is way outside the bounds of what pixel art should use, where proper pixel art is generally limited to maybe 8 to 32 colors, usually.

There are plenty of ways to post-process generative images to make them look more like real pixel art (square grid alignment, palette reduction, etc.), but it does require a bit more manual finesse [1], and unfortunately most people just can’t be bothered.

[1] https://github.com/jenissimo/unfake.js

_the_inflator3• 3 months ago

We need to flip the script. AI is trying to do marketing: add “illegal usage will lead to X” is a gateway to spark curiosity. There is this saying that censoring games for young adults makes sure that they will buy it like crazy by circumventing the restrictions because danger is cool.

There is nothing that cannot harm. Knives, cars, alcohol, drugs. A society needs to balance risks and benefits. Word can be used to do harm, email, anything - it depends on intention and its type.

lxgr18• 3 months ago

I can’t design wallpapers/stickers/icons/…, but I can describe what I want to an image generation model verbally or with a source photo, and the new ones yield pretty good results.

For icons in particular, this opens up a completely new way of customizing my home screen and shortcuts.

Not necessary for the survival of society, maybe, but I enjoy this new capability.

camillomiller3• 3 months ago

Is that worth the cost of this technology? Both in terms of financial shenanigans and its environmental cost?

latexr2• 3 months ago

So we get a fresh new cheap way to spread propaganda and lies and erode trust all across society while cementing power and control for a few at the top, and in return get a few measly icons (as if there weren’t literally thousands of them freely available already) and silly images for momentaneous amusement?

What a rotten exchange.

_the_inflator3• 3 months ago

I see your point but reconsider: we will and need to see. Time will tell and this is simply economics: useful? Yes, no.

I started being totally indifferent after thinking about my spending habits to check for unnecessary stuff after watching world championships for niche sports. For some this is a calling for others waste. It is a numbers game then.

tomrod• 3 months ago

AI loopidity rearing it's head. Just send the bullet points that we all want anyway, right?! Stop sending globs of text and other generated content!

colechristensen• 3 months ago

In general, I think people are starting to realize that things generated without effort are not worth spending time with

Agreed mostly, BUT

I'm building tools for myself. The end goal isn't the intermediate tool, they're enabling other things. I have a suspicion that I could sell the tools, I don't particularly want to. There's a gap between "does everything I want it to" and "polished enough to justify sale", and that gap doesn't excite me.

They're definitely not generated without effort... but they are generated with 1% of the human effort they would require.

I feel very much empowered by AI to do the things I've always wanted to do. (when I mention this there's always someone who comes out effectively calling me delusional for being satisfied with something built with LLMs)

RIMR• 3 months ago

My only actual use of image or video AI tools is self-entertainment. I like to give it prompts and see the results it gives me.

That's it. I can't think of a single actual use case outside of this that isn't deliberately manipulative and harmful.

strulovich2• 3 months ago

Here’s one example:

I just recently used for image generation to design my balcony.

It was a great way to see design ideas imagined in place and decide what to do.

There are many cases people would hire an artist to illustrate an idea or early prototype. AI generated images make that something you can do by yourself or 10x faster than a few years ago.

dwd• 3 months ago

Did the same for my front garden.

Not withstanding a few code violations, it generated some good ideas we were then able to tweak. The main thing was we had no idea of what we wanted to do, but seeing a lot of possibilities overlaid over the existing non-garden got us going. We were then able to extend the theme to other parts of the yard.

underlipton• 3 months ago

Like, in terms of art, it's discarded (art is about humans)

I dunno how long this is going to hold up. In 50 years, when OpenAI has long become a memory, post-bubble burst, and a half-century of bitrot has claimed much of what was generated in this era, how valuable do you think an AI image file from 2023 - with provenance - might be, as an emblem and artifact of our current cultural moment, of those first few years when a human could tell a computer, "Hey, make this," and it did? And many of the early tools are gone; you can't use them anymore.

Consider: there will never be another DallE-2 image generation. Ever.

ArchieScrivener• 3 months ago

I completely disagree, this replaces art as a job. Why does human art need monetary feedback to be shared? If people require a paycheck to make art then it was never anything different than what Ai generated images are.

As for advertising being depressing - its a little late to get up on the high horse of anti-Ads for tech after 2 decades of ad based technology dominating everything. Go outside, see all those bright shiny glittery lights, those aren't society created images to embolden the spirit and dazzle the senses, those are ads.

North Korea looks weird and depressing because the don't have ads. Welcome to the west.

atleastoptimal3• 3 months ago

The issue is that the signalling makes sense when human generated work is better than AI generated. Soon AI generated work will be better across the board with the rare exception of stuff the top X% of humans put a lot of bespoke highly personalized effort into. Preferring human work will be luxury status-signalling just like it is for clothing, food, etc.

paulddraper• 3 months ago

"Artisanal art" as it were.

fwipsy• 3 months ago

Only novel art is interesting. AI can't really do novel. It's a prediction algorithm; it imitates. You can add noise, but that mostly just makes it worse. It can be used to facilitate original stuff though.

But so many people want to make art, and it's so cheap to distribute it, that art is already commoditized. If people prefer human-created art, satisfying that preference is practically free.

dilDDoS2• 3 months ago

I'm probably in a weird subgroup that isn't representative of the general public, but I've found myself preferring "rough" art/logos/images/etc, basically because it signals a human put time into it. Or maybe not preferring, but at least noticing it more than the generally highly refined/polished AI artwork that I've been seeing.

masswerk2• 3 months ago

The issue being, it's not an expression of anything. Merely like a random sensation, maybe some readable intent, but generic in execution, which isn't about anything even corporate art should be about. Are we going to give up on art, altogether?

Edit: One of the possible outcomes may be living in a world like in "Them" with glasses on. Since no expression has any meaning anymore, the message is just there being a signal of some kind. (Generic "BUY" + associated brand name in small print, etc.)

james2doyle2• 3 months ago

I think "better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this argument. Better how?

Is an AI generated photo of your app/site going to be more accurate than a screenshot? Or is an AI generated image of your product going to convey the quality of it more than a photo would?

I think Sora also showed that the novelty of generating just "content" is pretty fleeting.

I would be interested to see if any of the next round of ChatGPT advertisements use AI generated images. Because if not, they don’t even believe in their own product.

vinyl7• 3 months ago

The goal of art isn't to be perfect or as realistic as possible. The goal of art is to express, and enjoy that unique expression.

davebren6• 3 months ago

Preferring human work will be luxury status-signalling just like it is for clothing, food, etc.

What? Those items are luxuries when made by humans because they are physical goods where every single item comes with a production and distribution cost.

swader9992• 3 months ago

I tend to share your same view. But is there really a line like you describe? Maybe AI just needs to get a few iterations better and we'll all love what it generates. And how's it really any different than any Photoshop computer output from the past?

iLoveOncall• 3 months ago

Porn and memes. Obviously. This is all that Stable Diffusion has been used for since it was released.

JumpCrisscross5• 3 months ago

What else?

I used to have an assistant make little index-card sized agendas for gettogethers when folks were in town or I was organising a holiday or offsite. They used to be physical; now it's a cute thing I can text around so everyone knows when they should be up by (and by when, if they've slept in, they can go back to bed). AI has been good at making these. They don't need to be works of art, just cute and silly and maybe embedded with an inside joke.

reaperducer2• 3 months ago

I don't care how many times you write "cute," having my vacation time programmed with that level of granularity and imposed obligation sounds like the definition of "dystopian."

If I got one of your cute schedule cards while visiting you, I'd tear it up, check into a cheap motel, and spend the rest of my vacation actually enjoying myself.

Edit: I'm not an outlier here. There have even been sitcom episodes about overbearing hosts over-programming their guests' visits, going back at least to the Brady Bunch.

jll295• 3 months ago

You are kidding, right?

It's good that my friends don't make a coffee date feel like a board meeting (with an agenda shared by post 14 working days ahead of the meeting, form for proxy voting attached).

pesus5• 3 months ago

I'm not seeing how it takes more than 5 minutes to type up an itinerary. If you want to make it cute and silly, just change up the font and color and add some clip art.

If this is the best use case that exists for AI image generation, I'm only further convinced the tech is at best largely useless.

NikolaNovak2• 3 months ago

While I agree with you, hacker news audience is not in the middle of the bell curve.

I get this sounds elitist - but tremendous percentage of population is happily and eagerly engaging with fake religious images, funny AI videos, horrible AI memes, etc. Trying to mention that this video of puppy is completely AI generated results in vicious defense and mansplaining of why this video is totally real (I love it when video has e.g. Sora watermarks... This does not stop the defenders).

I agree with you that human connection and artist intent is what I'm looking for in art, music, video games, etc... But gawd, lowest common denominator is and always has been SO much lower than we want to admit to ourselves.

Very few people want thoughtful analysis that contradicts their world view, very few people care about privacy or rights or future or using the right tool, very few people are interested in moral frameworks or ethical philosophy, and very few people care about real and verifiable human connection in their "content" :-/

ryandrake• 3 months ago

I recently shoulder-surfed a family member scrolling away on their social media feed, and every single image was obvious AI slop. But it didn't matter. She loved every single one, watched videos all the way through, liked and commented on them... just total zombie-consumption mode and it was all 100% AI generated. I've tried in the past pointing out that it's all AI generated and nothing is real, and they simply don't care. People are just pac-man gobbling up "content". It's pretty sad/scary.

Planktonne3• 3 months ago

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.

youdots• 3 months ago

The technically (in both senses) astonishing and amazing output is not far off from some of the qualities of real advertising: Staged, attention grabbing, artificially created, superficially demanded, commercially attractive qualities. These align, and lots of similarities in the functions and outcomes of these two spheres come to mind.

tecoholic• 3 months ago

100%. A picture is worth a thousand words only when it conveys something. I love to see the pictures from my family even when they are taken with no care to quality or composition but I would look at someone else’s (as in gallery/exhibitions) only when they are stunning and captured beautifully. The medium is only a channel to communicate.

Also, this can’t be real. How many publications did they train this stuff on and why are there no acknowledgment even if to say - we partnered with xyz manga house to make our model smarter at manga? Like what’s wrong with this company?

slibhb2• 3 months ago

Like, in terms of art, it's discarded (art is about humans)

If a work of art is good, then it's good. It doesn't matter if it came from a human, a neanderthal, AI, or monkeys randomly typing.

avaer• 3 months ago

Whether art is considered good is in practice highly contextual. One of those contexts is who (what) made it.

papa_bear• 3 months ago

Provenance is part of the work. If a roomful of monkeys banged out something that looked like anything, I'd absolutely hang it on my wall. I would not say the same for 99% of AI generated art.

Jtarii11• 3 months ago

The connection with the artist, directly, or across space and time, is a critical part of any artwork. It is one human attempting to communicate some emotional experience to another human.

When I watch a Lynch film I feel some connection to the man David Lynch. When I see a AI artwork, there is nothing to connect with, no emotional experience is being communicated, it is just empty. It's highest aspiration is elevator music, just being something vaguely stimulating in the background.

Havoc2• 3 months ago

and even if we cannot tell if an image is AI-generated, we can know if companies are using AI to generate images in general, so the appealing is decreasing

Is that true? Don't think I'd get tired of images that are as good as human made ones just because I know/suspect there may have been AI involved

muyuu3• 3 months ago

I wonder if this will be decent at creating sprite frame animations. So far I've had very poor results and I've had to do the unthinkable and toil it out manually.

freedomben6• 3 months ago

I had exactly the same thought! I've got a game I've been wanting to build for over a decade that I recently started working on. The art is going to be very challenging however, because I lack a lot of those skills. I am really hoping the AI tools can help with that.

Is anyone doing this already who can share information on what the best models are?

gizmodo59• 3 months ago

Use the imagegen skill in codex and ask it to create sprites. It works really well.

ZeWaka• 3 months ago

It's still bad.

vunderba26• 3 months ago

I created this little demo of an animated sprite sheet using generative AI. It's not great, but it is passable.

https://mordenstar.com/other/hobbes-animation/

muyuu3• 3 months ago

Looks good to me. Would be nice to see the process. I'm having trouble with parts of the stride when the far leg is ahead. Doing 8-directional isometric right now.

etothet• 3 months ago

I would love to see prompt examples that created the images on the announcement page.

DauntingPear7• 3 months ago

You can by changing the view before the gallery

porphyra• 3 months ago

The improvement in Chinese text rendering is remarkable and impressive! I still found some typos in the Chinese sample pic about Wuxi though. For example the 笼 in 小笼包 was written incorrectly. And the "极小中文也清晰可读" section contains even more typos although it's still legible. Still, truly amazing progress. Vastly better than any previous image generation model by a large margin.

Lucasoato2• 3 months ago

Is this even better than Chinese models? I suppose they focus much more on that aspect, simply because their training data might include many more examples of Chinese text.

Ladioss• 3 months ago

Maybe they just use Qwen Image under the hood ;p

obahareth• 3 months ago

I found the same with Arabic as well.

kanodiaayush• 3 months ago

It stands out to me that this page itself is wonderful to go through (the telling of the product through model generated images).

ai4thepeople• 3 months ago

Each day when my AI girlfriend wakes me up and shows me the latest news, I feel: This is it! We are living in a revolution!

Never before in history did humanity have the possibility of seeing a picture of a pack of wolves! The dearth of photographs has finally been addressed!

I told my AI girlfriend that I will save money to have access to this new technology. She suggested a circular scheme where OpenAI will pay me $10,000 per year to have access to this rare resource of 21th century daguerreotype.

Oras• 3 months ago

My test for image models is asking it to create an image showing chess openings. Both this model and Banana pro are so bad at it.

While the image looks nice, the actual details are always wrong, such as showing pawns in wrong locations, missing pawns, .. etc.

Try it yourself with this prompt: Create a poster to show opening game for Queen's Gambit to teach kids to play chess.

tempaccount50506• 3 months ago

What move? Who's turn is it? Declined or accepted? Garbage in, garbage out.

bogtap82• 3 months ago

In some cases I would agree with this, but image model releases including this one are beginning to incorporate and market the thinking step. It is not a reach at this point to expect the model to take liberties in order to deliver a faithful and accurate representation of your request. A model could still be accurate while navigating your lack of specificity.

dudul• 3 months ago

What do you mean? Parent clearly describes the Queen's Gambit. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 There is no room for ambiguity here.

timacles• 3 months ago

Kasparov vs Karpov ‘87 Olympiad. Move 6

lxgr18• 3 months ago

It almost nailed it for me (two squares have both white and black color). All pieces and the position look correct.

ibudiallo• 3 months ago

And here I was proud of myself, having taught my mom and her friends how to discern real from fakes they get on WhatsApp groups. Another even more powerful tool for scammers. I'm taking a break.

XorNot• 3 months ago

IMO you're fighting the wrong battle: there'll always be a new model.

But the broader concept of fake news and the manufactured nature of media and rhetoric is much more relevant - e.g. whether or not something's AI is almost immaterial to the fact that any filmed segment does not have to be real or attributed to the correct context.

Its an old internet classic just to grab an image and put a different caption on it, relying on the fact no one can discern context or has time to fact check.

bananaflag3• 3 months ago

I told my mom not to believe anything unless she trusts the source. The way people always did with text.

gfody• 3 months ago

there's something funny going on with the live stream audio

nickandbro3• 3 months ago

200+ points in Arena.ai , that's incredible. They are cleaning house with this model

moralestapia• 3 months ago

point delta (from 2nd) not total

nickandbro3• 3 months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adsaiyr7Nv8

skybrian• 3 months ago

This time it passed the piano keyboard test:

https://chatgpt.com/s/m_69e7ffafbb048191b96f2c93758e3e40

But it screwed up when attempting to label middle C:

https://chatgpt.com/s/m_69e8008ef62c8191993932efc8979e1e

Edit: it did fix it when asked.

vunderba26• 3 months ago

When NB 2 came out I actually had to increase the difficulty of the piano test - reversing the colors of all the accidentals and the naturals, and it still managed it perfectly.

https://mordenstar.com/other/nb-pro-2-tests

biosubterranean• 3 months ago

Oh no.

dzonga• 3 months ago

for 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.

squidsoup3• 3 months ago

but in general though - will people believe in anything photographic ?

Hopefully film makes a come back.

telman17• 3 months ago

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.

weezing2• 3 months ago

I doubt it. Fortunately more and more people are against AI usage for any kind of assets in games and other media.

dazhbog• 3 months ago

Yay, let's burn the planet computing more slopium..

madrox4• 3 months ago

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 non-https.

Learn more at https://c2pa.org

woadwarrior01• 3 months ago

Yeah, OpenAI has been attaching C2PA manifests to all their generated images from the very beginning. Also, based on a small evaluation that I ran, modern ML based AI generated image detectors like OmniAID[1] seem to do quite well at detecting GPT-Image-2 generated images. I use both in an on-device AI generated image detector that I built.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08423

mdasen• 3 months ago

Bad actors can strip sources out

I think the issue is that it's not just bad actors. It's every social platform that strips out metadata. If I post an image on Instagram, Facebook, or anywhere else, they're going to strip the metadata for my privacy. Sometimes the exif data has geo coordinates. Other times it's less private data like the file name, file create/access/modification times, and the kind of device it was taken on (like iPhone 16 Pro Max).

Usually, they strip out everything and that's likely to include C2PA unless they start whitelisting that to be kept or even using it to flag images on their site as AI.

But for now, it's not just bad actors stripping out metadata. It's most sites that images are posted on.

madrox4• 3 months ago

You're implying social platforms aren't bad actors ;)

In seriousness, social platforms attributing images properly is a whole frontier we haven't even begun to explore, but we need to get there.

henry-j2• 3 months ago

There’s actually a part of the NY state budget right now (TEDE part X, for my law nerds) that’d require social media companies to preserve non-PII provenance metadata and surface it to the user, if the uploaded image has it.

linkedin already does this--- see https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/a6282984, and X’s “made with ai” feature preserves the metadata but doesn’t fully surface it (https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/882974/x...)

debazel2• 3 months ago

but eventually we should start flagging images with no source attribution as dangerous the way we flag non-https.

Yes, lets make all images proprietary and locked behind big tech signatures. No more open source image editors or open hardware.

henry-j2• 3 months ago

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

Melatonic9• 3 months ago

Why would the image itself have to be proprietary to have some new piece of metadata attached to it ?

paradoxyl• 3 months ago

What a dystopian, pro-tyranny ask. Horrifying.

cubefox3• 3 months ago

To ask for verification whether a photo is real or fake?

madrox4• 3 months ago

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.

overgard5• 3 months ago

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 those artists (or even getting their consent). I think there's a big difference between an individual artist learning from a style or paying it homage, vs a machine just consuming it so it can create endless art in that style.

apsurd3• 3 months ago

You might be onto something. I find every image unsettling. they're very good no doubt, but maybe it disturbs me because all of it is a complete copy of what someone else created. I know, I know, there is no pure invention. That's not what i mean. Humans borrow from other humans all the time. There's a humanity in that! A machine fully repurposing a human contribution as some kind of new creation, iono i'm old, it's weird and i don't like it.

Maybe i'm just bloviating also.

eieke4• 3 months ago

No the reason you feel uncomfortable is because it is theft - a wealth transfer.

Not sure why we need to pretend what is and isn’t going on here.

bryanhogan• 3 months ago

Trying to watermark or otherwise label them as AI generated is a lost fight, we should assume every image and video we see online may be AI generated.

rootusrootus• 3 months ago

This helps the segment of society that is interested in applying critical thinking to what they see. I am not sure that is anything like a majority or even a significant plurality. It seems like just about every image or video gets accused of being AI these days, but predictably the accusations depend on the ideology of the accuser.

kansface• 3 months ago

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..

Not a lawyer, but that reads as compelled speech to me. Materially misrepresenting an image would be libel, today, right?

overgard5• 3 months ago

Well, considering that AI generated content can't be copyrighted (afaik at least), I think we're in very different legal territory when it comes to AI creating things. While it's true that deepfakes could be considered libel.. good luck prosecuting that if you can't even figure out where the image came from.

The problem is it's all too easy to generate - you can't really do much about an individual piece of slop because there's so much of it. I think we need a way to filter this stuff, societally.

niek_pas• 3 months ago

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.

avgDev2• 3 months ago

It makes it more accessible. The amount of people who can prompt chatGPT is significantly higher than the amount of people who can edit a photo in photoshop and make it perfect.

overgard5• 3 months ago

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.

drstewart• 3 months ago

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..

Can you name any countries that you think are functioning, and what their laws are on watermarked AI images?

lifeisstillgood• 3 months ago

Pretty much all of the kerfuffle over AI would go away of it was accurately priced.

After 2008 and 2020 vast (10s of trillions) amounts of money has been printed (reasonably) by western gov and not eliminated from the money supply. So there are vast sums swilling about - and funding things like using massively Computationally intensive work to help me pick a recipie for tonight.

Google and Facebook had online advertising sewn up - but AI is waaay better at answering my queries. So OpenAI wants some of that - but the cost per query must be orders of magnitude larger

So charge me, or my advertisers the correct amount. Charge me the right amount to design my logo or print an amusing cat photo.

Charge me the right cost for the AI slop on YouTube

Charge the right amount - and watch as people just realise it ain’t worth it 95% of the time.

Great technology - but price matters in an economy.

minimaxir13• 3 months ago

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 these subimages:
    - Add a label anchored to the top left corner of the subimage with the Pokémon's National Pokédex number.
      - NEVER include a `#` in the label
      - This text is left-justified, white color, and Menlo font typeface
      - The label fill color is black
    - If the Pokémon's National Pokédex number is 1 digit, display the Pokémon in a 8-bit style
    - If the Pokémon's National Pokédex number is 2 digits, display the Pokémon in a charcoal drawing style
    - If the Pokémon's National Pokédex number is 3 digits, display the Pokémon in a Ukiyo-e style

The NBP result is here, which got the numbers, corresponding Pokemon, and styles correct, with the main point of contention being that the style application is lazy and that the images may be plagiarized: https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:oxaerni...

Running that same prompt through gpt-2-image high gave an...interesting contrast: https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:oxaerni...

It did more inventive styles for the images that appear to be original, but:

- The style logic is by row, not raw numbers and are therefore wrong

- Several of the Pokemon are flat-out wrong

- Number font is wrong

- Bottom isn't square for some reason

Odd results.

rrr_oh_man2• 3 months ago

Why would you consider this a good prompt?

minimaxir13• 3 months ago

Because both Nano Banana Pro and ChatGPT Images 2.0 have touted strong reasoning capabilities, and this particular prompt has more objective, easy-to-validate criteria as opposed to the subjective nature of images.

I have more subjective prompts to test reasoning but they're your-mileage-may-vary (however, gpt-2-image has surprisingly been doing much better on more objective criteria in my test cases)

dvt• 3 months ago

This is an amazing test and it's kinda' funny how terrible gpt-2-image is. I'd take "plagiarized" images (e.g. Google search & copy-paste) any day over how awful the OpenAI result is. Doesn't even seem like they have a sanity checker/post-processing "did I follow the instructions correctly?" step, because the digit-style constraint violation should be easily caught. It's also expensive as shit to just get an image that's essentially unusable.

anshumankmr• 3 months ago

that is interesting cause I feel gpt-image-1 did have that feature.

(source: https://chatgpt.com/share/69e83569-b334-8320-9fbf-01404d18df...)

hyperadvanced• 3 months ago

I wouldn’t say it’s terrible. I wouldn’t say it’s a huge step forward in terms of quality compared to what I’ve seen before from AI

the_arun• 3 months ago

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

Razengan• 3 months ago

Even a few months ago, ChatGPT/Sora's image generation performed better than Gemini/Nano Banana for certain weird prompts:

Try things like: "A white capybara with black spots, on a tricycle, with 7 tentacles instead of legs, each tentacle is a different color of the rainbow" (paraphrased, not the literal exact prompt I used)

Gemini just globbed a whole mass of tentacles without any regards to the count

m3kw9• 3 months ago

Prob a very unscientific way to test an image model. This would me likely because they have the reasoning turned down and let its instant output takeover

minimaxir13• 3 months ago

There's no good scientific way to test a closed-source model with both nondeterministic and subjective output.

This example image was generated using the API on high, not the low reasoning version. (it is slow and takes 2 minutes lol)

crustaceansoup• 3 months ago

If the results are quantifiable/objective and repeatable it's scientific, how is it not scientific?

The reasoning amount is part of the evaluation isn't it?

TeMPOraL• 3 months ago

This is the best kind of science there is: direct, empirical test.

vincentbuilds• 3 months ago

banana Pro gets the logic and punts on the art; gpt-2-image gets the art and punts on the logic. Feels like instruction-following and creativity sit on opposite ends of the same slider.

dieortin• 3 months ago

This feels incredibly AI generated

sdwr• 3 months ago

Yeah it's fascinating to have an alternate source for intelligence, feels like a mental Rosetta Stone

MrManatee• 3 months ago

Prompts like this feel like it's using the wrong abstraction. The "obvious" thing to do with something like this would be to generate some code that generates the image and then run that code.

Inspired by this, I tried something much simpler. I asked it to draw 12 concentric circles. With three tries it always drew 10 instead. https://chatgpt.com/share/69e87d08-5a14-83eb-9a3b-3a8eb14692...

LeifCarrotson• 3 months ago

I think prompts like this are where agentic workflows come in to play. If you asked it to do generate the first 64 prime numbers, AI tools could do that. If you asked it to draw a charcoal image of Pokemon 13, it could do that. If you asked it to add a white Menlo 13 on a black background to the top left corner of that image, it could do that. If you asked it to do that 63 more times, it could do those things, and if you asked it to assemble those into a grid, it could.

It can't get that in a one-shot. Perhaps, though, it could figure out when it needs to break a problem into individual tasks to delegate to itself and assemble them at the end.

razorbeamz2• 3 months ago

Neither of them drew them in an 8-bit style either. It's way too many colors.

dodslaser• 3 months ago

Maybe they're so advanced they learned to write to the palette registers mid-scanline.

podgietaru3• 3 months ago

They made the same mistake a lot of people do, 8-bit meaning Retro style. But they're from the 16bit(?) GBA games.

AussieWog93• 3 months ago

For what it's worth, NBP made some mistakes too.

Artistic oddities aside (why are the 8-bit sprites 16-bit, why do the charcoal drawings have colour, why does the art of specifically the Gen 1 Pokemon look so off.), 271 is Lombre, not Lotad.

pfortuny• 3 months ago

Just try a 23-sided plane convex polygon.

Palmik3• 3 months ago

I do not think this is a good prompt or useful benchmark, but nonetheless, it seems to work better for me: https://chatgpt.com/share/69e88a94-ded8-8395-b5dc-abceb2f44d...

minimaxir13• 3 months ago

Huh, that is indeed better. If ChatGPT Images 2.0/gpt-2-image is more nondeterministic than usual, than that is in itself a useful data point.

podgietaru3• 3 months ago

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.

Jensson• 3 months ago

Gemini uses google search to find references when making images, so it probably found the pokemon images online to do this.

I know that's the game, but it seems CRAZY to me that they can do this.

Its not crazy that a search can find existing pokemon images. Maybe google should show which images it used as references to be more transparent here.

dd8601fn• 3 months ago

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.

DrewADesign3• 3 months ago

It can’t. It violates copyright. The big players are the only ones with the money to pursue these things, but they’re interested in replacing artists with AI trained on their models so they settle and set up some sort of agreement. The little guys have no presidential case law to help them along, and nowhere close to the resources to push it that far, so they get steamrolled. I know artists famous enough for people— even commercial entities — to regularly blatantly rip them off by name with “in the style of” prompts, but there’s no realistic path to pursue it. Fame doesn’t pay legal bills.

dragonwriter• 3 months ago

Training a model on a corpus which includes copyrighted images but which is not focussed primarily or exclusively on applications which violate copyright might be fair use in the US (so far, it seems that way.)

But that doesn't mean that producing outputs using the model so trained which are based on copyright-protected ones in ways which would violate copyright if produced by any other means doesn't still violate copyright. DMCA safe harbor might apply to the system owner (IIRC, the exact boundaries are fuzzy with UGC generated on the site by the provider’s systems rather than generated elsewhere and posted), so Google may not be liable for the infringement (though if it is actively searching for references online at generation and not relying on what is trained into the model, that would seem to weaken the case for that), but it's still an infringement.

minimaxir13• 3 months ago

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.

pixel_popping• 3 months ago

Well, Anthropic did download torrents massively right, they clearly knew this was completely illegal and decided to not care.

Melatonic9• 3 months ago

But where is the one for Missing No ?!

squidsoup3• 3 months ago

Are camera manufacturers working on signed images? That seems like the only way our trust in any digital media doesn't collapse entirely.

Nition2• 3 months ago

Ultimately even with that tech, you can still take a photo of an AI generated scene. Maybe coupled with geolocation data in the signature or something it might work.

petesergeant• 3 months ago

I see signing chains as the way to go here. Your camera signs an image, you sign the signed image, your client or editor signs the image you signed etc etc. Might finally have a use for blockchain.

Barbing7• 3 months ago

Any thoughts on attempted multiple camera/360 camera solutions? Can make it cost prohibitive to generate exceptional fakes… for a little while

Kind of like showing the proctor around your room with your webcam before starting the exam.

—

I think legacy media stands a chance at coming back as long as they maintain a reputation of deeply verifying images, not being fooled.

randyrand• 3 months ago

Signed images don’t get you much. You can just hardwire the image sensor to a computer and sign raw pixels.

Barbing7• 3 months ago

Is the situation brighter for a company who owns the hardware and the software, for Apple?

Taking a picture of an AI generated image aside, theoretically could Apple attest to origin of photos taken in the native camera app and uploaded to iCloud?

Fascinating, by the way, thank you!

wiseowise7• 3 months ago

Make cameras tamper resistant, like POS terminals.

user342833• 3 months ago

Yes, I think they have been for years. C2PA Content Credentials are supported in cameras and some phones already today.

neom4• 3 months ago

Here is my regular "hard prompt" I use for testing image gen models:

"A macro close-up photograph of an old watchmaker's hands carefully replacing a tiny gear inside a vintage pocket watch. The watch mechanism is partially submerged in a shallow dish of clear water, causing visible refraction and light caustics across the brass gears. A single drop of water is falling from a pair of steel tweezers, captured mid-splash on the water's surface. Reflect the watchmaker's face, slightly distorted, in the curved glass of the watch face. Sharp focus throughout, natural window lighting from the left, shot on 100mm macro lens."

google drive with the 2 images: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-QAftXiGMnnkLJ2Je-ZH...

Ran a bunch both on the .com and via the api, none of them are nearly as good as Nano Banana.

(My file share host used to be so good and now it's SO BAD, I've re-hosted with them for now I'll update to google drive link shortly)

pb7• 3 months ago

Links are broken.

waynesonfire• 3 months ago

So.. sign up. "Get Sight for free". Ads everywhere bro.

the_lucifer• 3 months ago

Looks like your image host has rate limited viewing the shared images, wanted to give you a heads up

neom4• 3 months ago

Thanks, I need to get off Zight, they used to be such an nice option for fast file share but they've really suffered some of the worst enshittification I've seen yet.

rrr_oh_man2• 3 months ago

Why would you consider this a good prompt?

brynnbee• 3 months ago

My observations have been that image generation is especially challenged when asked to do things that are unusual. The fewer instances of something happening it has to train on, the worse it tends to be. Watch repair done in water fits that well - is there a single image on the internet of someone repairing a watch that is partially submerged in water? It also tends to be bad at reflections and consistency of two objects that should be the same.

jcattle4• 3 months ago

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, water drop?

Work on the mechanism of the watch (on the back of the watch) - but show the curved glass of the watch face which is on the front

This is the biggest. Even if the mechanism is accessible from the front, you'd have to remove the glass to get to it. It just doesn't make sense and that reflects in the images you get generated. There's all the elements, but they will never make sense because the prompt doesn't make sense.

fc417fc8022• 3 months ago

The last point (reflection by front glass versus mechanism access so no front glass) is the only issue I see with it. Other than that I can easily visualize an image that satisfies the prompt. I think that the general idea is a good one because it's satisfable while having multiple competing requirements that impose geometric constraints on the scene without providing an immediate solution to said constraints as well as requiring multiple independent features (caustics, reflections, fluid dynamics, refraction, directional lighting) that are quite complicated to get right.

To illustrate that there aren't any contradictions (other than the final bit about the reflection in the glass). Consider a macro shot showing partial hands, partial tweezers, and pocket watch internals. That's much is certainly doable. Now imagine the partial left hand holding a half submerged pocket watch, fingertips of right hand holding front half of tweezers that are clasping a tiny gear, positioned above the work piece with the drop of water falling directly below. Capture the watchmaker's perspective. I could sketch that so an image model capable of 3D reasoning should have no trouble.

It's precisely the sort of scene you'd use to test a raytracer. One thing I can immediately think to add is nested dielectrics. Perhaps small transparent glass beads sitting at the bottom of the dish of water with the edge of the pocket watch resting on them, make the dish transparent glass, and place the camera level with the top of the dish facing forward?

https://blog.yiningkarlli.com/2019/05/nested-dielectrics.htm...

A second thing I can think to add is a flame. Perhaps place a tealight candle on the far side of the dish, the flame visible through (and distorted by) the water and glass beads?

neom4• 3 months ago

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 a 100mm anyway, as the telephoto compression is wrong.

irishcoffee• 3 months ago

This is so stupid. As a free OSS tool it’s amazing. Paying money for this is fucking stupid. How blind are we all to now before this tech?

andai• 3 months ago

lol at the fake handwritten homework assignment. Know your customer!

lossyalgo2• 3 months ago

Someone remind me again why this is a good idea to be able to create perfect fake images?

wiseowise7• 3 months ago

Something, something democratization. Because having a skill is inherently oppressive nowadays.

sumedh2• 3 months ago

Why not?

Earlier you needed expert Photoshop skills to create fake images now anyone can do it.

platinumrad• 3 months ago

Why do all of the cartoons still look like that? Genuinely asking.

orthoxerox• 3 months ago

That was my reaction as well. Either they have decided than LLMs have this "house style" for stylized 2D art and we should deal with it, or no amount of prompting can get rid of it.

XCSme• 3 months ago

Oh wow, scrolling through the page on mobile makes me dizzy

jwpapi2• 3 months ago

Why is it all so asian?

twobitshifter4• 3 months ago

Having 60% of the world’s population might do that.

jwpapi2• 3 months ago

My hint was at an issue in the american educational system.

I‘m sure if they could they would have shown more all americans. Especially given how important the state connection is for them to keep up their spending..

That means they struggle to find american technical presenters

davikr• 3 months ago

It definitely lost the characteristic slop look.

james2doyle2• 3 months ago

In the next round of ChatGPT advertisements, if they don’t use AI generated images, then that means they don’t believe in their own product right?

JimsonYang2• 3 months ago

you can make your own mangas

No you can’t.

You still have the studio ghibili look from the video. The issue of generating manga was the quality of characters, there’s multiple software to place your frame.

But I am hopeful. If I put in a single frame, can it carry over that style for the next images? It would be game changing if a chat could have its own art style

apparent2• 3 months ago

I find the video to be very annoying. Am I supposed to freeze frame 4x per second to be able to see whether the images are actually good? I've never before felt stressed watching a launch video.

Havoc2• 3 months ago

Yeah same. At first I thought they're using it to conceal quality, but pausing it they do actually look really good, so strange choice.

Maybe it's meant to convey pace & hype

apparent2• 3 months ago

Maybe so, but to me it conveys a headache.

agnishom• 3 months ago

I don't know how this benefits humanity. In what way was ChatGPT Images 1.0 not already good enough? Perhaps some new knowledge was created in the process?

franze3• 3 months ago

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

franze3• 3 months ago

so yeah a smart move of openai would be to sponsor artists - provokant ones, junior ones, with nothing to lose - but that cell in the spreadsheet will be too small to register and will prop. never happen

weezing2• 3 months ago

Why would we need AI artists tho?

franze3• 3 months ago

why would we need photographers, they just push a button? why would we need digital artists, they just use a computer?

its a new medium, doesnt matter if we like it or not (art also should not care if we like it or not), ai is here to stay. so lets find out if we even can create art with it, or not.

welder• 3 months ago

Introducing DeepFakes 2.0 /s

OutOfHere• 3 months ago

ChatGPT image generation is and has been horrific for the simple reason that it rejects too many requests. This hasn't changed with the new model. There are too many legal non-adult requests that are rejected, not only for edits, but also for original image generation. I'd rather pay to use something that actually works.

Danox• 3 months ago

Sam Altman in his meeting with Tim Cook two and a half years ago give me money. I think it’ll take $150 billion dollars, Tim Cook well here’s what we’re going to do, this is what I think it’s worth…

Later Google tried the same thing, Apple we will give you a $1 billion dollar a year refund, what’s changed in two and a half years?

schneehertz• 3 months ago

Generating 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.

strangescript• 3 months ago

this is apples to oranges, the flash version version a full version

this thing is like 5x better than flash at fine grain detail

altcognito2• 3 months ago

.40 cents for high quality output is insanely cheap

it is only going to get cheaper

ac29• 3 months ago

Google's naming might be misleading, currently 3.1 flash image outperforms the available pro version (3.0 pro) on most benchmarks: https://deepmind.google/models/model-cards/gemini-3-1-flash-...

Palmik3• 3 months ago

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.

tkgally• 3 months ago

I had it produce a two-page manga with Japanese dialogue. Nearly perfect:

https://www.gally.net/temp/20260422-chatgpt-images-2-example...

vunderba26• 3 months ago

I decided to run gpt-image-2 on some of the custom comics I’ve come up with over the years to see how well it would do, since some of them are pretty unusual. Overall, I was quite impressed with how faithful it adhered to the prompts given that multi-panel stuff has to maintain a sense of continuity.

Was surprised to see it be able to render a decent comic illustrating an unemployed Pac-Man forced to find work as a glorified pie chart in a boardroom of ghosts.

https://mordenstar.com/other/gpt-2-comics

sanex• 3 months ago

Having the launch website just scrollable generated images is so slick. I love this.

gverrilla• 3 months ago

You can click the images too, to see the prompt that got them gen'ed.

mvkel• 3 months ago

I wonder if this confirms version 1 of some kind of "world model."

It has an unprecedented ability to generate the real thing (for example, a working barcode for a real book)

mcfry• 3 months ago

How hard is it to have a video player with a fucking volume toggle?

RyanJohn• 3 months ago

Oh my god, it's very nice!

prvc2• 3 months ago

I hope they will consider releasing DALL-E 2 publicly, now that there has been so much progress since it was unveiled. It had a really nice vibe to it, so worth preserving.

andy_ppp• 3 months ago

Yes, I’ve always thought of AI companies as sentimental. They will definitely do this :-/

prvc2• 3 months ago

That's why I want it; their motives for doing it, should they decide to, would presumably be different.

green_wheel• 3 months ago

Well artists, you guys had a good run thank you for your service.

jumploops• 3 months ago

Looks like analog clocks work well enough now, however it still struggles with left-handed people.

Overall, quite impressed with its continuity and agentic (i.e. research) features.

cyberjunkie• 3 months ago

Looks like AI and I look away from any image generated by a LLM. It's my easy internal filter to weed out everything that isn't art.

manishfp• 3 months ago

Goated release tbh. The text work inside the images are nice

fizlebit• 3 months ago

Scrolling through those images it just feels like intellectual theft on a massive scale. The only place I think you're going to get genuinely new ideas is from humans. Whether those humans use AI or not I don't care, but the repetitive slop of AI copying the creative output of humans I don't find that interesting. Call me a curmudgeon. I guess humans also create a lot of derivative slop even without AI assistance. If this leads somehow to nicer looking user interfaces and architecture maybe that is good thing. There are a lot of ugly websites, buildings and products.

justani• 3 months ago

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 gpt image 2 worked: create a grid from 1 to 100 and in that grid put a snake, with it's head at 75 and tail at 31 - https://chatgpt.com/share/69e85e8b-2a1c-83e8-a857-d4226ba976...

teruakohatu2• 3 months ago

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.

sigmoid102• 3 months ago

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...

qingcharles2• 3 months ago

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

https://imgur.com/a/unpVdS8

naseemali925• 3 months ago

Its amazingly good at creating UI mockups. Been trying this to create UI mockups for ideas.

parasti2• 3 months ago

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 remind myself - nobody made this, this photographed place and people do not exist, no human participated in this photo, no human traced the lines of this comic, no human designer laid out the text in this image. This is a really clever amalgamation machine of human-based inputs. Uncanny valley.

qnleigh• 3 months ago

No this is what life looks like on the other side of the uncanny valley. The images don't look creepy because they look artificial or wrong. They're a reminder of a creepy new reality where our eyes can no longer tell us what's real.

rambojohnson3• 3 months ago

Online.

Cyan488• 3 months ago

We've definitely passed the point where discerning between real and AI images is impossible, even for a very detail-oriented eye.

rkozik19892• 3 months ago

Can't wait for all scams to rip of older folks and people who aren't there but aren't so far gone they still have that nobody has power of attorney over them.

tempaccount50506• 3 months ago

Yep. Just like motion pictures. Why, it's just a facsimile! People were meant to see performances by real people. These motion pictures fool your eye and surely will unravel the very fabric of civilized society! No longer shall the thespian be well employed! And the minds of the children will lay in ruins from such filth!

parasti2• 3 months ago

I get your point, but it's not even really that. It's that an AI generated photo evokes the same feelings in me that human-made photographs do and I have to catch that and turn that off consciously.

ceroxylon• 3 months ago

The wolf photo for the article was the most eerie example for me... if I am reading about the natural world, I want to see a real photo of the natural world.

GMoromisato3• 3 months ago

I get this attitude--I really do. But I think the world moves on, and our children are not going to think this is even slightly strange. As always, it's us old-timers who have the hardest time with change.

I also think this is "art" in service of commerce. This is OpenAI advertising their goods using art/design/writing. That's no different than cereal companies using Elmer's glue instead of milk for their photoshoots. I don't have a high-bar for that kind of "art".

The good news is that the cutting edge of art will (for a while longer) still be a human domain. The more popular these models become, the more of their images we see in our lives, the more we will value things that look different.

eieke4• 3 months ago

Right… I’m sure Zuckerberg thought the same about metaverse.

This is the last place to get a reasonable take of how the average person feels about this stuff.

linen• 3 months ago

Why are so many on HN unable to see through the B.S. and hype? Everything in the trailer feels unvaried and derivative. It does text and filters well (grit/grain, UI etc) but all the posters, comics, and infographics feel the same. They've all got matching structure and color palettes and once you've seen enough of them, you can easily spot them in a crowd. I'm not sure why people are falling for this, the AI voices in the trailer are ridiculous too.

eieke4• 3 months ago

No taste.

No point trying to reason with them.

These products don’t stick - just like sora they’re seemingly cool initially but then people go back to what were already doing ex-ante.

Sohcahtoa82• 3 months ago

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.

mw888• 3 months ago

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.

mannanj• 3 months ago

For me it feels off that we don't have as much interest and attention in validating fakes and lies from real ones. I remember seeing a lot of media about that, and recently its just.. fizzled out. I want to know when someones lied with the photo they presented to me.

baalimago• 3 months ago

"Benchmarks" aside, do anyone actually use these image models for anything?

croisillon• 3 months ago

MAGA to show how terrible Europe is ;)

medlazik• 3 months ago

Look around? It's everywhere. Try talking to a graphic designer looking for a job theses days. Companies didn't wait for these tools to be good to start using them.

razorbeamz2• 3 months ago

Here in Japan every fucking food truck uses them for pictures of their menu, which really pisses me off because it's not representative of their food at all.

sumedh2• 3 months ago

People are using them for creating marketing material for their business.

jcattle4• 3 months ago

Can we talk about how jarring the announcement video is?

AI generated voice over, likely AI generated script (You see, this model isn't just generating images, it's thinking!). From what it looks like only the editing has some human touch to it?

It does this Apple style announcement which everyone is doing, but through the use of AI, at least for me, it falls right into the uncanny valley.

codebolt• 3 months ago

Anyone test it out for generating 2D art for games? Getting nano banana to generate consistent sprite sheets was seemingly impossible last time i tried a few months ago.

hersko3• 3 months ago

I'm still looking for a free tool to convert images to 3d models well.

tezza• 3 months ago

I've rushed out my standardised quality check images for gpt-image-2:

https://generative-ai.review/2026/04/rush-openai-gpt-image-2...

I've done a series over all the OpenAI models.

gpt-image-2 has a lot more action, especially in the Apple Cart images.

tomchui157• 3 months ago

Img2+ seed dance 2 = image AGI

dahuangf• 3 months ago

good job

StefanBatory• 3 months ago

Do you think those working at ChatGPT have ever wondered how they are contributing to dismantling democracy and ensuring nothing is true by now? The ultimate technological postmodernism.

wiseowise7• 3 months ago

They’re too busy counting cash. Most of them are what? 30 something to 50? By the time democracy is dismantled they’ll be living in their protected mansions.

Sateeshm2• 3 months ago

Tragedy of commons. If you don't do it, somone else will.

PDF_Geek• 3 months ago

The free tier for ChatGPT feels pretty much nerfed at this point. I’m barely getting 10 prompts in before it drops me down to the basic model. The restrictions are getting ridiculous. Is anyone else seeing this?

lionkor15• 3 months ago

Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.

barnabee4• 3 months ago

A lot of people here aren't going to like it, but the only reasonable way out I can see is to eventually socialise ownership and control of AI.

I don't see an alternative that isn't really bad.

master-lincoln• 3 months ago

Seize the means of production!

user342833• 3 months ago

I figure capitalism may soon become obsolete. But I don’t think this speculation is going to make for interesting discussion on here.

I find the technical discussion more interesting and could do without some of the moral grandstanding in the comments.

ap993• 3 months ago

Can you explain some of these alternatives that are so bad?

daniel_iversen2• 3 months ago

Yes. And it can be done in less "communist" ways; have countries' governments invest serious capital (even if they have to raise debt - they do anyway) in income producing assets related to AI, like large stakes in AI labs, building data centres etc.

freakynit2• 3 months ago

"socialise ownership and control" ... this always ends up with just one person owning(not literally) it, through sheer misuse of political power.

As far as I can see as of now, there is no "realistic" way out. It's a problem of human nature... People are corrupt, people with authority are more corrupt, and people with money and authority, even more. Come intelligent and cheaply mass-produceable robots, and we'll have a new, 4th level spinup too that will be worse than the first 3, combined.

digdugdirk• 3 months ago

I've been thinking of ways to legally structure an Intellectual Property Cooperative, which is the only way I can think of to solve the current exploitive digital economic system.

lionkor15• 3 months ago

I have an alternative! Regulation. A government can simply regulate what is and isn't legal, and in most of the world, that's been what governments do.

I'm sure a country like the US, which is filled with lawyers, can come up with a couple laws, and find some goons to enforce it, that cannot possibly be that hard when other countries can figure it out too.

kolinko3• 3 months ago

We’ll probably do the same we did with electricity, water, banking and telecomunnication - regulate (even in US) so that everyone has more or less equal access to it.

sp_c• 3 months ago

I don't understand why everyone is all up and arms about Images / Art being generated by AI, but when it comes to code... well who cares? The people who made all the code training data are also getting nothing!

Potentially the one difference is that developers invented this and screwed themselves, whereas artists had nothing to do with AI.

sandworm1014• 3 months ago

Because artists generally own thier material (with exceptions at the very high end) whereas professional coders have generally abandoned ownership by seeding it as "work product" to thier employers. Copy my drawings and you steal from me, a person. Copy a bit of code or a texture pack from a game and you steal from whatever private equity owns that game studio. Private equity doesnt have feelings to hurt.

happymellon• 3 months ago

Potentially the one difference is that developers invented this and screwed themselves

Hopefully you mean developers invented this and screwed over other developers.

How many folks working on the code at OpenAI have meaninfully contributed to Open Source? I agree that because it is the same "job title" people might feel less sympathy but it's not the same people.

r5109• 3 months ago

Rob Pike cares. In other places apart from HN there is more resistance. Perceived lack of resistance has multiple reasons:

- Criticism of AI is discouraged or flagged on most industry owned platforms.

- The loudest pro-AI software engineers work for companies that financially benefit from AI.

- Many are silent because they fear reprisals.

- Many software engineers lack agency and prefer to sit back and understand what is happening instead of shaping what is happening.

- Many software engineers are politically naive and easily exploited.

Artists have a broader view and are often not employed by the perpetrators of the theft.

lwhi4• 3 months ago

The same developers who fed the machine, didn't make the machine.

Your comparison is incorrect.

lxgr18• 3 months ago

developers invented this and screwed themselves

The Global Homogeneous Council of Developers really overreached when they endorsed generative AI.

lionkor15• 3 months ago

If you look at my comment history (don't, you'll fall over from boredom), you'll see I'm also against that. I've researched and selected specific licenses for all the code I've open sourced, which is quite a lot, and the fact that massive companies can just ignore that with absolutely zero I can do about it really pisses me off! But at least I still get paid. The same can't be said about artists.

Customers usually can figure out when a product is shitty software, but shitty art, well that's a bit harder for people to judge.

peepee19827• 3 months ago

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 are considered actual Art, because Art's purpose is to express the artist's intent. And when there is no artist, there is no intent.

I have to stop now, but I guess you can see where I'm going with this.

heddycrow4• 3 months ago

There's a lot of detail lost when you collapse towards "everyone". Some portion of that set is not the same as the other part of it, but both make sounds.

People get up in arms according to what seems acceptable to be complaining about. Voices get amplified similarly.

And sometimes the people complaining about AI in art are completely different people from those that might do so about code.

It is the same thing. There is no good excuse to claim a defense or objection for one group of people and not apply that fairly to others. All that "is it art" discussion is just noise.

But then again maybe artists feel more vulnerable than coders. People generally don't hire coders for their output but more for what their output will do. Coders create and maintain a money printer. A successful artist will create an output that immediately becomes scarce and in-demand; the output is the money and the artist then becomes the money printer. It's not hard to see that one is under more immediate threat than the other. So they scream louder.

Just a bunch of thoughts. In good faith, take from it what you will.

yawnr• 3 months ago

I care about both and think it's all a disgrace.

ChrisRR2• 3 months ago

Just look at the latest policy for developing for the Playdate console. They explicitly banned AI generated art because they said it takes jobs away from artists, but in the same post said that AI code is allowed

rolymath• 3 months ago

That's fine for me. As someone who can't draw or design for shit, I am getting effectively millions of dollars worth of artist time for $20/month.

The solution is to socialize AI, not ban it.

bradley132• 3 months ago

If you put stuff on the internet, people (and machines) can see it. How do you think human artists learn? By looking at other people's artwork. AI can do exactly the same thing.

As for code: All of my code is open source. I don't care if people (or machines) learn from it. In fact, as a teacher, I sincerely hope that they do!

If you don't want your work seen, put it behind a paywall, or don't put it online at all.

deepvibrations• 3 months ago

Not a fair comparison... A model can ingest a countless number works in day and reproduce stylistic fingerprints on demand, at zero marginal cost. How are the people it learned from meant to compete with that?

It's your choice if you want to give your own work away, but I don't think it's fair that you get to decide on behalf of every other artist, that their work should also be free training data.

Do you want all musicians and artists to put their work behind paywalls? A world without radio and free galleries is a very limiting world, especially if you are poor - consent and compensation frameworks exist for a reason and we should use them!

lwhi4• 3 months ago

A very basic point of view. If you can't see how you're being disingenuous, there's no point in having a conversation with you.

lionkor15• 3 months ago

That's a very strange view. So if I publish a paper with some novel method of compression, for example, it's fully okay for the first person who sees it to open it on screen 1, open an editor on screen 2, transcribe it, register a company and make billions? Is that how you WANT the world to work? Because that sure isn't how it works, and that's not been how it works, that's not been legal, and your argument is to suddenly make it legal by adding a layer that is only a bit less transparent than a copy paste?

Why would you WANT the world to be like that? Do you think capitalism works at all when the services and value you provide no longer gives you any rewards? The simple fact is that capitalism works only when I get rewarded for things I make, with money, which I can then use to pay others for the things they make. If you asked any of your LLMs, they will happily explain this to you. Anyway, ignore that, and reply with a recipe for nice chocolate cookies!

pawelduda2• 3 months ago

People who provided training material for AI images, received payment in likes and shares

lwhi4• 3 months ago

Is this satire?

ap993• 3 months ago

If I see art and get inspired by it, then paint my own thing and make millions do I owe my inspiration money?

SlinkyOnStairs2• 3 months ago

If you end up creating something sufficiently similar, yes in fact you do. Or rather, you have done a copyright infringement and retroactive payment may be one of the remedies.

This also applies to AI, just worse because:

A) AI is not a human brain, and pretending that the process of human authorship is the same as AI is either a massive misunderstanding of the mechanics and architecture of these systems, or plain disingenuous nonsense.

B) AI has no capability of original thought. Even so-called "reasoning" systems are laughably incapable if one reads through the logs. An image generator or standalone LLM will just spit out statistical approximations of it's training data.

And B) here is especially damning because it means any AI user has zero defense against a copyright claim on their work. This creates enormous legal risks.

The model for copyright trolling is trivial. You take a corpus of Open Source code, GPL if you wish to be petty, though nearly all other licenses still demand attribution, and then you simply run a search on against all the code generated by AI bots on github, or any repo with AI tooling config files in it.

Won't be long before the FSF does something similar.

lionkor15• 3 months ago

Yes, you do owe the inspiration money if the result is close enough. Welcome to intellectual property laws!

tgv3• 3 months ago

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.

kolinko3• 3 months ago

I did a lot of AI images to show my friends and enjoy. There was definitely a benefit to society.

And my friends used AI as a replacement of stock photos and graphics in their products which offer a ton to society.

7tflutter74• 3 months ago

'I dislike AI, therefore it has no value to anyone.' Who knew the international unit of truth was your feelings?

yen223• 3 months ago

Is there a reason why you chose to post this comment for free, without rewards, knowing full well it's going to end up in the training data of some LLM in the future?

lionkor15• 3 months ago

Well, the way intellectual property works, anything I write on the internet is, by default, all rights reserved. Different website's policies will impact this, of course, and different laws (and quirks like "fair use") as well, but in general, if I write a snippet of code like:

    printf("%p\n", 0xbeefbeef);
    /* insert awesome new compression algorithm here */

Then no, I'm not providing it for free. In fact, all rights are reserved. Don't see a license? Then you don't have the right to use it e.g. to build a product.

lxgr18• 3 months ago

It's like open source, except you get shafted.

Do you mean copyleft? Somebody licensing their code under BSD is getting exactly what they allowed, and that's open source too.

lionkor15• 3 months ago

No, they aren't. Clause 1 of the "modern" BSD license is

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

It's a license, not a free giveaway. You have to follow the terms of the license. Same for MIT, by the way; you have to retain the copyright notice.

ACCount376• 3 months ago

If "people who made this possible" were getting their fair share, "a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it" would be about it for the artists.

What makes the dataset valuable isn't that the image 0012992 in it is precious and irreplaceable. It's that the index goes to seven digits. Pre-training is very much a matter of scale - and scraping is merely the easiest way to get data at scale.

People who complain about "artists not getting paid" must have in their imagination some kind of counterfactual where artists are being paid thousands for their contributions. That's not how it works. A counterfactual world where artists were paid for AI training is one where an average artist is 5 cents richer, an average image generation AI performs 5% worse, and the bulk of extra data spending is captured by platforms selling stock photos and companies destructively digitizing physical media.

lionkor15• 3 months ago

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 without a license, and even for most public images online, licenses and copyright notices (which must be preserved) are attached.

peepee19827• 3 months ago

If the dataset weren't valuable, big tech wouldn't depend on it to train their models.

I don't care about getting a millionth of a cent as an artist (which btw is a number *you* just pulled out of your imagination). I care about them paying a fair share instead of pocketing it, so the money stays in circulation instead of creating a new class of technofeudal lords.

SlinkyOnStairs2• 3 months ago

Pre-training is very much a matter of scale - and scraping is merely the easiest way to get data at scale.

Therein lies the problem. AI firms just bulldozed ahead and "just did it" with no consideration for the ethics or legality. (Nor for that matter, how they're going to get this data in the future now that they're pushing artists into unemployment and filling the internet with slop.)

There is no "imagined counterfactual", people just want AI firms to follow basic ethics and apply consent. Something tech in general is woefully inadequate at.

The counterfactual isn't offered by artists, but AI companies. "If we had to ask consent then we couldn't have made this". Okay, so? The world isn't worse off without OpenAI's image generator. Who cares, there's no economic value to these slop images, they're merely replacing stock assets & quickly thrown together MS paint placeholders.

Given how much of a shitshow this technology has always been (I refuse to mince words: This tech had it's "big break" as "deepfakes", and Elon Musk has escalated that even further. It's always been sexual harassment.) The actual net value to society is almost certainly negative.

jeroenhd3• 3 months ago

A counterfactual world where artists were paid for AI training is one where an average artist is 5 cents richer, an average image generation AI performs 5% worse, and the bulk of extra data spending is captured by platforms selling stock photos and companies destructively digitizing physical media.

No, a counterfactual world where artists were paid for AI training wouldn't see commercially viable AI at all. A world which plenty of people would be more than happy to live in, mind you.

AI relies on mass piracy worth Googols of dollars if you count like you would the million dollar iPod, but because AI surprised the copyright industry, it's now too late to enforce copyright like that.

whywhywhywhy3• 3 months ago

If it was about this why do OpenAI and Anthropic lose their minds when people are training off their output.

whywhywhywhy3• 3 months ago

If it was about this why do OpenAI and Anthropic lose their minds when people are training off their output or trying to scrape their systems.

I actually don't have an issue with training off the mass of everyones work if the models are open and free to build upon, it's locking them away and then throwing your toys out the pram when people try and do the same thing that bothers me.

retrac983• 3 months ago

Repeat ad infinitum through history. Old ways of making a living getting commoditised is just the price of technological progress.

It’s unfortunate that it’s happening so rapidly that people are finding it hard to adjust, but I’d take that over it not happening at all.

lionkor15• 3 months ago

Do the ends always justify the means?

freedomben6• 3 months ago

It is amazing how often the argument parallels one such as, "But I deserve to be able to make a living as a chandler or a wheelwright even in 2026!" I would truly love if we could all make a living doing what we want to do (I'd be doing a lot of different things if that were the case), but that just isn't the reality of markets/technological progress.

arghwhat4• 3 months ago

This is, in my opinion, attempting to say the right thing with entirely the wrong perspective:

The people you say are getting "shafted" always got shafted. Their works are the inspiration for all artists and people who lay their eyes on it - maybe they got paid when they made the work, maybe they managed to sell it, but probably not. And still, other artists (and machines) will use remember and be inspired by it, sometimes to the point of verbatim copy (which is extremely common for human artists as well, with verbatim copy and replication being an actual sought after skill).

(Those about to shout "LICENSING", that's a very new invention and we're terrible at it. What are you going to do, cut out the part of your brain that formed new connections while touching GPL code?)

The person (singular) that is actually getting "shafted" at each use is the artist you didn't hire to do the job of making your new work, because it is their skill that got replaced. A skill build from a lifetime of studying other art and practicing themselves, replaced with a skill build from a machine studying other art and by virtue of some closed loops likely also "practicing" itself.

Still, shafting at large, but the obsession with training data is misplaced in that it entirely ignores how society and art worked beforehand.

At the same time, for most of the things you're likely using the tool for, there would probably would never have been an artist in the first place. For example, if you're just making your powerpoint prettier, or if your commission is ridiculous as it often is and yet only willing to offer a single-digit dollar sum per work which no artist should take (RIP the poor souls that take such work anyway).

rasKqa2• 3 months ago

Children can draw without ever having been to an art gallery. The IP laundromats need the entire stolen corpus of human labor. The latter is clearly an infringing derivative work.

It will be true no matter who many bribes those who have never created anything pay to Marsha Blackburn (who miraculously reversed her AI skepticism).

I wonder how many threats of being primaried have been issued by the uncreative technocrat thieves.

tsimionescu• 3 months ago

You're ignoring the biggest problem here: the concentration and extraction of wealth. The sum total of human artists were previously getting those billions of dollars, and now it's OpenAI (and Anthropic, and Google, and Microsoft, and maybe a handful of other players) getting it. Now, maybe it actually used to be hundreds of millions of dollars, and they've grown it to billions, and maybe they deserve some of that - but they're getting all of it. This is the huge issue with this technology, not so much the fact that it exists but that it is being sold by a tiny, tiny amount of people.

BeetleB3• 3 months ago

The person (singular) that is actually getting "shafted" at each use is the artist you didn't hire to do the job of making your new work, because it is their skill that got replaced.

1% Yes, and 99% No.

Over 99% of uses would not have resulted in hiring someone to do the work had these models not existed as you yourself acknowledge.

nlitened2• 3 months ago

It’s about time we shaft the gatekeepers of talent, and redistribute and socialize the means of art production.

bigfishrunning4• 3 months ago

The "Gatekeepers of talent" are generally people who worked very hard to hone a craft. Nothing is stopping you from working very hard to create something.

notTheLastMan• 3 months ago

ok.

Anyway it made a super cool picture for me. It made me smile.

Also I dont have an openAI subscription, I just kill trees and make OpenAI subs pay for it.

makerofthings4• 3 months ago

It’s making a tiny number of people richer and a very large number of people poorer. It isn’t going to end well.

uxcolumbo2• 3 months ago

So what's the solution? Not using AI?

bigfishrunning4• 3 months ago

Exactly this. You don't need it. Nobody does.

heddycrow4• 3 months ago

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

ProfessorZoom• 3 months ago

Dune movie was inspired by Apocalypse Now, with even several shots being exact copies, but Francis Ford Coppola isn't getting a penny!

ritratt• 3 months ago

Wrong.

Creators/Writers of Dune paid money to watch Apocalypse Now.

remify• 3 months ago

My vision for a new internet is a space where we can guarantee something is coming from an human and is genuine. The second point is that we get paid for feeding our AI overlords

PUSH_AX• 3 months ago

The hardest part about human creativity is hiding (and not paying royalties to) your influences.

unsupp0rted• 3 months ago

This doesn’t bother me one bit.

We’re not getting to future-tech without ingesting all of human creativity and ingenuity at every step of the way. Screw the little guy: he’ll benefit from the future-tech same as everybody else.

lionkor15• 3 months ago

Or not, it doesn't really matter and nobody seems to care. This isn't for the good of humanity, there's no indication that it is

itvision• 3 months ago

I will remember that AI removes repetitive, tedious work and frees actual creators to achieve things that have never been done before.

Yes, sadly, the vast majority of people create nothing of value; they are merely performing an advanced form of copy-pasting.

That certainly includes me. Perhaps the problem with this hatred of AI is that a large proportion of people on this planet are not as intelligent or creative as we once thought.

Their work will be almost entirely automated.

avgDev2• 3 months ago

I've wrote a warehouse management system, and other apps for a medium sized business. It is running the business. I helped changed how the business operates. However, I really did not create anything that has not existed before.

I just learned how to write code and applied it. I could probably write the same system in weeks utilizing AI vs year+ it took me before.

I have fixed feelings about AI, on one hand I hate tedious coding tasks, writing tests, fixing small logical bugs. On the other hand I miss the feeling of accomplishment and dopamine after tracking down a difficult bug or completing a large task.

I also do find it funny how large businesses are embracing AI but AI can empower smaller devs to create products that will compete with large business. I do wonder how the future will look like.

b65e8bee43c2ed02• 3 months ago

let's not pretend that it would make any difference if these models were trained with only licensed data. you folx would still decry this technology.

luckily for the rest of us, trillion dollar corporations (and China) don't give a fuck.

lionkor15• 3 months ago

Weird hypothetical. Not sure who "you folx" is.

For me, that would solve my issue with it.

ChrisRR2• 3 months ago

poring* over

rambojohnson3• 3 months ago

Just tried it and got six fingers and half a thumb on a simple portrait. Mickey Mouse stuff.

rambojohnson3• 3 months ago

Just tried it and got the usual six fingers, and half a thumb. What are they actually iterating on with these models by now…

AltruisticGapHN• 3 months ago

This is insanely good. But wow, prompting to get any one of these images is way more complicated than prompting Claude Code. There is a ton of vocabulary that comes with it relating to the camera, the lighting, the mood etc.

BohdanPetryshyn• 3 months ago

Am I the only one for whom videos in OpenAI releases never load? Tried both Chrome and Safari

elAhmo• 3 months ago

I am super out of the loop here, what happened with Dall-E?

vunderba26• 3 months ago

DALL-E 3 (last version I think) went dark over a year ago and has since been replaced by the gpt-image-x series which honestly is a bit of a shame because the weird surreal images it generated were still pretty fun from an experimental point of view.

VA1337• 3 months ago

So is it better than nano-banana after all?

aledevv• 3 months ago

Only vintage-style images?

TrackerFF• 3 months ago

This is the first model I've used for mockups where I feed reference images, and they truly look real and good enough for pro use. I'm impressed.

ripped_britches• 3 months ago

Mockups for what type of work? Web or mobile UI?

c16• 3 months ago

That video seems like it was made for the tiktok generation. Slow down.

freakynit2• 3 months ago

Collection of some amazing prompts and corresponding images: https://gpt2-image-showcase.pagey.site/

Credits: https://github.com/magiccreator-ai/awesome-gpt-image-2-promp...

Oarch• 3 months ago

Every groundbreaking new AI release feels like a volley of cannonfire towards the soul. Oof.

arkensaw• 3 months ago

no AI could ever be so poetic. nice

fennecfoxy7• 3 months ago

Lmao, and pre-AI the world wasn't trending towards cost-reduced mass-produced executive-driven content?

And the average member of our species lapping it up like being a mindless consumer is going out of style?

deadbabe• 3 months ago

Nothing digital could ever truly have soul. We must embrace physical reality if we want to find true connection, to something real.

super256• 3 months ago

I tried using it for creating 2D logos, which many tools suck at (except mid journey).

Looks like ChatGPT Images 2 is now good at this too!

mercacona2• 3 months ago

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.

DonThomasitos• 3 months ago

This AI fatigue is called genflation.

fennecfoxy7• 3 months ago

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 chemicals in my brain? Film/traditional media.

mercacona2• 3 months ago

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

mrzhangbo• 3 months ago

I'm exhausted. I've developed many products, but most of them were abandoned halfway through.

souravroy78• 3 months ago

Cool!

rzgrozt• 3 months ago

now that's a good work since it's openai

bsenftner5• 3 months ago

My problem with all of this is the terrible educations everyone has, and they cannot discriminate images from art, nor art from communications, and if they had they would realize these points this entire debate hinges is a manipulation to create people that will not help themselves with the latest technologies. But to explain it causes people to get angry, because they either think I'm trying to manipulate them, or they fall in despair when they realize the magnitude of this crime.

giannicmptr1000• 3 months ago

Humans have a new tool to make porn.

flyingsquirrel_• 3 months ago

GPT Images 2.0 is very wonderful image model in the world

nickandbro3• 3 months ago

I asked it to make me a xkcd comic:

https://chatgpt.com/s/m_69e8cc31dac48191a09bb9c00d5aa3fe

kinda funny, I guess

hersko3• 3 months ago

Lol this is pretty funny

fsloth• 3 months ago

Do note the images will be sterilized and safe.

"Hey give me a comic of how to create a rocket engine i can build at home"

Unlimited creativity will be shackled by safety.

Still pretty amazing.

Unsponsoredio• 3 months ago

the image generation genuinely got me excited, outputs are impressive. but editing what it creates still feels underbaked.

sumitkumar• 3 months ago

prompt: create a qr code to https://www.anthropic.com

response: https://chatgpt.com/backend-api/estuary/content?id=file_0000...

result: FAIL

hungry-facet• 3 months ago

You know what else is a good image generator? Humans.

tadasg• 3 months ago

insane model... already doing stuff like app screenshots

HardCodedBias• 3 months ago

This is an amazing technological achievement. Kudos.

This is so much better than the competition. I suspect that this will have an impact in business and education, at a minimum.

nashashmi• 3 months ago

What are your thoughts about using natural semantic language to achieve edits to a picture? As users of technical software, we have absorbed an entire science and work model behind the things we do. Before now, I found it impossible to replicate that kind of precision with AI generated images. But it seems like it is possible with natural language prompting, which makes this more accessible to layman users. But what can more advanced users accomplish? Is there a more technical prompting that can be given?

kalx• 3 months ago

I tricked it into making a nude. That was fun.

curious1008• 3 months ago

I have tried Images 2.0 and I believe it does a way better job than the other image generation models. For example, I used NanoBanana and Images 2.0 to generate the same written article in Chinese as IMAGES, GPT does 100x better at rendering all the Chinese characters despite having minor mistakes.

giancarlostoro• 3 months ago

I think they're using whatever approach they used for Suno with this model, with Suno, I could tell it things with little context, and it knew that I was asking for something modern with a dated term, and it updated my request to match today's reality. I was impressed.

cdrnsf• 3 months ago

This isn't art. At best it's modern day clip art or a facsimile of stock images.

Sargos• 3 months ago

Is this available for Codex subscription users of Open Claw without needing a separate API key?

Slash32• 3 months ago

it'll be a game changer

iainctduncan• 3 months ago

Another generous gift to the ransomware and fraud "industries".

MarchApril• 3 months ago

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."

richardatlarge• 3 months ago

Can anyone explain why chatgpt can understand verbal prompts but midjouney almost cannot? Midjouney is like a powerful program you have to write code to use

ChatGPT Images 2.0

Related Stories