ChatGPT Images 2.5

12 hours ago (openai.com)

There's maybe something cool at the core of this - help you ideate by seeing things in images! - but it's lost in all the other awful ways this gets used. More fake menus with food that looks nothing like the real thing. More fake book covers displacing real artists.

I can admire and enjoy the work of coding agents, which mostly just help solve problems and save me time. I can appreciate that there are creative uses for agents with text, that they could save people time, and that the environmental and safety concerns potentially have solutions.

I just can't see my way to appreciating these art agents, or any use of AI as a replacement for a human creative process. It's not because their output is bad, anymore (though sometimes it still isn't great). It's because it is bereft.

Even if I could, nobody in my life would be okay with my using them alongside my actual creative work. In fact, they'd be pretty upset if I did. And if I found out they'd been sharing stories with me written by AI, I'd be mad, too.

I'd rather just see the prompts.

This is a nice showcase of what it can do but so little of it seems to be actually useful or rather odd choices. Some examples were already mentioned, but also the Gdocs presentation: apart from the terrible layout, why would one use fake photos of the sun in a "science" talk when there is an abundance of real high-res photos available? For educational purposes these are even free to use.

I use gpt image 2 very heavily for my current project (ai UI design tool). The biggest improvement I'm seeing with this is in speed. I've generated around 50k images with gpt-image-2 via api, the the average latency has held at around 104s.

It's wild how much of a difference this is - images are coming in at around 35-40s. Very noticable, and makes a difference when you're iterating quickly: https://jjcm.org/gpt-image-2.5-speed.mp4

  • Some UI tests with it:

    Warcraft 3 style agentic dev interface: https://image.non.io/cd9ea5cd-8ed7-44e0-ad3f-480ff0e51875.we...

    Overall it used the reference images I gave it a bit better than gpt-image-2. I noticed 2 had issues getting the blue button just right. 2.5 nailed it.

    A "John Politics" meme site: https://image.non.io/d2922164-fa96-4d07-a141-2febadb02939.we...

    Did very well modifying the pose while keeping the appearance of Glenn Powell. gpt-image-2 had a lot of the "fried" look for some of his skin in prior designs I did for johnpolitics.com

    A cyberpunk inspired ramen website: https://image.non.io/8d5d8f10-0f0f-4d91-b5ea-33af7538b150.we...

    Dark mode sites surfaced the fried look quite a bit in prior models, but this definitely looks better on that front. One thing that looks perhaps worse though is the microglyphs - note the teal lines to the bottom right of the ramen, they're kinda blurry / not straight.

    Overall fixed some of the main issues / gripes I had with gpt-image-2

    • >Warcraft 3 style agentic dev interface

      I can forgive the randumb placement of chains but not that sovlless icon of a person from the wow era. wc3 era UI would've used a character portrait.

  • I'm confused. Isn't diffui using its own model?

    • It's both. I have several models loaded into diffui. Which one each prompt uses is determined based on user preference over time. Whichever image is currently at the top of any image node stack marks a win for the model that generated it, I assign each model an ELO score based on that, and I bias the chance each model is selected based on their ELO score. Right now gpt-image-2 is better than my own model, and it services around ~96% of the requests in diffui.

      I'll also be adding in microsoft's mai-image-2.6 soon, but I need to update my SOC2 to add MS as a provider before I turn that on for other users. The full list of models in rotation is here: https://image.non.io/d53a9760-8b74-4386-b032-d59da2cd5319.we...

      2 replies →

I've really enjoyed using AI to generate images. For example, Long time ago, I read an amazing five-book saga called Riverworld, and I used AI to recreate many scenes, places, and ideas from the story. Seeing the books come to life through hundreds of images was a great experience. Definitely one of the coolest things to enjoy in 2026. Try it with your favorite books.

Omg, I love how the first examples just show how easy you can fake things. Fake being at a party with your friends. Didn't make your bed, no problem, just fake it.

The sad part is my mother would love "remixing" my old child photos of me.

  • Seriously, are these really the best examples they could come up with?

    What is the point of having a fake picture of your dog in a costume? What’s the point of having a fake picture about being at a party?

    The only use case I can think of for this is for someone who likes to make up stories and lie about what they’ve done. Is that really the target market?

    • Trying to be as least cynical as possible, imagine if you were a party with 3 or more people, and you really wanted a nice pic like that to commemorate the night, but never got to take one all together because someone left early, and you were in the bathroom when they announced their departure.

      Yes, it's a major first-world problem to not get a photo, but to the right person, it could mean a lot to them to "fix" the photo they took with A and B to add C to their 'rightful place.'

      4 replies →

    • That was exactly my first reaction!

      Mark where you at the party today? Yes of course look at these pictures I took (╥﹏╥)

    • > The only use case I can think of for this is for someone who likes to make up stories and lie about what they’ve done. Is that really the target market?

      As far as I can tell, the biggest uses of these sort of models is to pump out lots of content on multimedia-based social media, so yeah, it's basically for the sort of person who doesn't shy away from exaggerating, omitting or outright lying in order to get more views.

  • Didn't make your bed, no problem, just fake it.

    Except you need to have taken a photo of the unmade bed, uploaded it to ChatGPT, prompted for the 'fake made bed' version, and downloaded the image.

    Surely it's less effort to just make the bed?

  • Yeah, the "3 lonely selfies -> fake 2006 party photo" is the most 2020s thing I've ever seen in my life.

  • I’m less concerned about faking being at a party with friends and more with the 2006 timestamp on said photo!

    Can you imagine finding a stack of photos in the basement with timestamps of the Before AI times and wondering whether they are real or just got swapped with generated and printed fakes? Scary!

    It’s cool, folks… nothing bad is going to happen. Right? Right?!

  • > Omg, I love how the first examples just show how easy you can fake things. Fake being at a party with your friends. Didn't make your bed, no problem, just fake it.

    Well, that's like the entire point of social media anyway, isn't it? People there will _love_ this. Ugh ...

    • My secret hope is that this kills the influencer industry and gets things back to just ads. Just the ads happen to be fake people, instead of real people pretending to be ads.

  • Apple Intelligence received the same criticism when they launched Siri AI. Seems like the faking it, is a common product UC.

  • And the fan favourite 'Imagine the apartment we're trying to sell doesn't look like a superfund site'

  • This is an artificial modern world problem.

    For thousands of years people have told embellished stories, and humanity has thrived upon it. Tall tales, fish stories. Heck, that's still the average person's experience unless they've really worked their critical thinking muscles.

    Today's working adults are used to the short thirty-year "safe space" of smartphones and internet. We grew up in a temporary meta stability where "truth" was "recorded" and could be "relied upon", and now that the fundamentals are shifting, we're complaining that the physical world is amenable to storytelling and imagination once again.

    Cry me a river. This is awesome and is a direct consequence of everything I ever wanted the future to be: magical creative superpowers. I wanted to graduate into the world that is emerging now rather than spend the first third of my career in incrementalism and slow progress.

    2008 - 2020 sucked. What a total lull. AI is healing these things and putting us back on track for the jet pack future we grew up dreaming about. It's taking us back to a creative world without shitty platforms controlling what we say and do, and without a ceiling on what we can accomplish.

    It feels like every day we're unwrapping a new present or several. Not small things, but reality-shattering things that fill me with inspiration to build and explore. It's so much fun.

    • To tell a story, to even exaggerate one is something completely different from providing "prove" it did really happen exactly the way it was told.

      There are many many people that will take an image as an undeniable fact of the real world. While before you could fake(photoshop) things it took more time then 30 seconds.

      I wouldnt regulate these aspects, because I believe pandoras box is already wide open. Regulating anything wouldn't change much.

      3 replies →

  • >The sad part is my mother would love "remixing" my old child photos of me.

    How is that sad? Why is your mothers joy sad?

    • Because she will pounder in old memories that never existed in the first place. Instead of cherrying the current times. Past moments of long gone time will be elongated beyond their actual existence.

      Imagine a time where a small moment is actually a smaller amount experienced then the remixed one. At one point you will have more memories of fake events, and more emotional beats for said fake events than real ones.

      AI videos showing you a second life if you just had chosen a different path.

      People will be depressed from it.

      2 replies →

    • Because elderly people who never had a connection to tech or sci-fi will have no feel for, and therefore no resistance to the kind of trickery that seems fun but is ultimately corrosive. Cheerfully meddling with the artifacts of memory at that life stage is corrosive.

The "composite party photo", while impressive, shows that still the miniscule details are being lost, like the teeth structure of the guy in the middle or the fact that the guy on the left is holding the cup with three fingers. Wondering why they chose this edit for the showcase.

  • I'm guessing if you work on these images the whole day you start to lose the ability to judge image quality. like your brain becomes slopified

  • > Wondering why they chose this edit for the showcase.

    They probably didn't care to check those images in detail.

  • I've also found the OpenAI image models to lose fine detail on image edits compared to Nano Banana or Flux models which faithfully retain input source image geometry and details. I was hoping this might be different but it sounds similar to previous OpenAI image models where something is lost in translation during image editing.

  • And don't forget the 'Thing' from Addams Family in the shoulder of the guy on the left.

    • The guy on the left in that same photo only has three fingers (and a thumb, I suppose). I thought image generation has already outlived that.

      Edit: I feel stupid I didn't see the original OP already mentioning three finger issue. I'll just leave it here.

  • The dog is even more on the nose. The shadow shape is almost the same despite the dog getting quite a lot of volume around it's original body parts.

  • Haha yes, I immediately saw the fingers and was surprised 'cos I thought that was something they had "solved" by now

    • Maybe it's like how spammers intentionally make their emails more obvious, because they have a very specific target audience.

    • Exactly this. "All this progress and they're back to miscounted fingers again?!"

A big wtf at the LM Arena scores: https://arena.ai/leaderboard/text-to-image

gpt-image-2.5-sunburst: 1421

gpt-image-2.5-flare: 1399

gpt-image-2 (medium): 1381

mai-image-2.6: 1331

Even with LM Arena being flawed, this is significant. I was planning to do a writeup on the original gpt-image-2 as it crushed every complex image comprehension benchmark I had...I'm glad I procrastinated since ChatGPT Images 2.5 seems like an even better starting point to test out what these models can actually do nowadays.

Many people still think AI images output the wrong number of fingers on a regular basis. (EDIT: this was an ironic comment to make in hindsight and I own it)

  • > Many people still think AI images output the wrong number of fingers on a regular basis.

    There's literally an image of a dude with 3 fingers in the Composite Party Photo.

    • So this is a valid point (and I admit I eat crow on my earlier statement), but not for that reason. In that photo, there are three fingers in front of the cup, but you would not expect 5 fingers because the way humans hold cups, the thumb will be occluded by the cup itself. That said, I don't think there is a way to hold a cup with both thumb and index occluded, so the correct number of fingers would be 4 in that case.

      2 replies →

  • > Many people still think AI images output the wrong number of fingers on a regular basis.

    Last time I used a frontier image model it made me a seal with three hands so…

Did anyone else notice that all the use cases they show here are "use ChatGPT Images to imagine all the things you'd like to have, but don't"? For some, they then show the thing being done, since just imagining it is a bit sad. But ChatGPT Images can't help you with that part. At best, it's providing creative inspiration - but that's often the most rewarding part of the process for a human... None of the examples show things where you just need an image directly, e.g. product labels, signage, sprites, textures, images for websites etc. I guess aspirational stuff sells?

In order, there's:

- Imagine you had better decorations for your fish.

- Imagine you had a tattoo of your pet.

- Imagine you had a unique candle holder.

- Imagine you had a worse haircut.

- Imagine your flowers were arranged.

- Imagine your child had a suit.

- Imagine your dog had a costume.

- Imagine you owned a scanner.

- Imagine you could hang out with friends.

- Imagine your bed was made.

  • > None of the examples show things where you just need an image directly, e.g. product labels, signage, sprites, textures, images for websites etc.

    I think this is because recently there has been extreme backlash to this sort of thing.

  • I think you've picked the most cynical interpretation for each one. More charitably, you could say:

    - Ideate on things you can build for your fish tank

    - Iterate quickly on ideas for a tattoo

    - Get inspiration for a new metalworking (or 3D printing?) project

    - Get a sense for what a new haircut might look like, before you commit

    - Iterate on arrangements for a bouquet of flowers

    - Do silly things with childhood photos

    - Do silly things with pet photos

    - Clean up low-res, damaged, or weirdly formatted photos

    - Do some creative storytelling with your long-distance friends

    - Okay yeah fine they should just make the damn bed, but I can imagine small tweaks being useful for staging a home (easy to abuse though)

The Facebook Marketplace experience for used items has depreciated considerably with the widespread adoption of LLMs. Between placing attractive models in photos to help sell items to "improving" the visual condition of items that completely misrepresent the real condition of the item, it's becoming a trickier landscape to navigate to find what you're looking for.

  • I just saw a Twitter thread of someone calling out realtors with absolutely egregious editing examples. Think pools and landscaping being added to backyards, a background being changed to a mountainous region, and furniture being “staged” in an attic space that definitely couldn’t fit that furniture.

    A realtor in the comments said they legally need to also post the same images but unedited, but I’m sure when you’re doing this the first 50 are the edited ones and the last 50 are the unedited. How many people make it to the unedited?

The introductory video is a bit... daring. Generating tattoos that clearly look AI-generated is not one of the use-cases I'd try to sell.

  • It hit me just now that people might actually getting tattooed with AI slop. That’s… depressing

    • I mean, it would probably be better than many tattoo artist’s art. At the very least it’s not a bad way to see how something would look on you before you permanently do it.

    • Think on the bright side, it will be easier to judge them based on how they look, possibly saving you time and effort.

Still can't make sprite sheets :(

The societal hurt coming out of public releases of image/video generation models must surely outweight the gain. That said, this is super impressive.

Still far too expensive.

At this point, I'm much more interested in seeing releases for models chasing down prices on "good enough" to unlock new use-cases than I am SOTA.

I've been using Grok Imagine V1 in prod for months now as its quality for my use-case is already more than enough.

Even GPT Images 2.0 was already the best image generator that I have tried, however it has one massive disadvantage: draconian censorship. Even rendering a gun in a scene will get flagged as "violent" and I need to create a battle scene... there's no way to do that with the censorship the way it is

> Arrange these flowers

What kind of person cares enough to buy flowers for an arrangement, but is uninterested in arranging them? What's next, will we buy music for our AI's to listen to? Food for them to eat?

There's a lot of drudgery that can be automated away, but this seems to be focused on automating the fun parts away.

Surprised to see no acknowledgement of how "AI Menu Slop" has become deeply associated with ChatGPT.

Everywhere I go now I see places that blatantly used ChatGPT for their menus or posters and they all look the same.

It feels almost existential to the service, I know its a bit of survivor bias but so many images you can tell immediately are ChatGPT vs other image providers, and I feel many people are sick of them.

  • It's not like a lot of these small-time outfits used their own photography to begin with.

    They'd pick a kebab from a menu of professionally made kebab pictures the printer has in stock. Or worse, they'd take pics of their own plated food with a dead-centre point flash in a dark cupboard or something and you end up with awful-looking food, no matter how good.

  • I think quite a lot of people can distinguish between AI and real (maybe 30%?) but almost no one is worried about distinguishing between ChatGPT and other image generators

  • What if I told you.. the average person LIKES ai slop images and prefers them to "regular" ones. The same way the average person prefers McDonalds food to healthy food

  • It's the great desemantification machine: want to look, read, sound, feel just like the median, without personal traits or individual expression? This is for you! (And people used to talk about communism and everything being same. Well, tech-broism actually achieved this.)

I can't stop thinking that these use cases aren't real, and OpenAI is just gaslighting people. Humans don't need AI for these trivial things.

This ad feels like a science fiction, where humans can't do anything without the help of their AI assistants.

- Design a tattoo of my cat

- What hairstyle should I have

- Arrange these flowers

What next? Who should I date? Open the door?

None of the improvements are particularly useful for my principal use-case. Creating infographics to visualize how things interact and so on. But it’s always nice to see improvement here.

I hope my local kebab shops switch to this for their signs.

  • One of my locally owned fried rice places doodled a simple pencil cartoon of them cooking fried rice to satisfy their evil landlord and it has cascaded into a series of mildly unhinged pencil cartoon doodles every few days on Facebook. It is an incredibly refreshing break from the local food/eats FB groups being utterly flooded with identical looking slop posters and has earned my business several times. Also it's just... incredibly in-touch marketing in general.

  • I can't disagree more. A lot of shops in our city have done this and I actually miss the shitty photoshopped images that did not even look like the real life dish anyway. AI signs are way worse.

    • I thought that was parents point, that currently they're using so shitty AI generated logos, that even if we despise that as a concept, at least better models output slightly less sloppy shit. But re-reading it, I'm not sure that was the right initial reading.

      7 replies →

    • It might be a sub-comment on a tweet that was fairly viral last week. Or it might be serious. We’ll never know.

  • If they wanna loose customers...

    • Not OP but my guess is that they're already using bad AI images for their kebab business, and OP wants them to use better AI for their images (so they may actually lose fewer customers because the AI imagery isn't so awful)

      1 reply →

    • Why do you care what your kebab shop uses for their menus? These people are trying to run a business. If this can allow them to clearly communicate prices in a well designed pleasant way, it's great. Why must they slave away in design and technology or pay someone to do it for them? I think it's great

      4 replies →

    • It would be an improvement, probably, because they are still using Dall.e 1 apparently.

  • If it was only the small shops doing it... companies that could easily hire ad designers use AI slop images full of errors.

the clothing examples are super odd because its not actually useable. the clothes will not look like that on you, it just fits them to your body.

I feel it's more like a Nano Banana 2 update. It's much faster than gpt-image-2 but the quality isn't much different.

allllll the way at the bottom

> Pricing and availability

> Images 2.5 is rolling out today to ChatGPT, ChatGPT Work, and Codex users across all tiers on desktop, mobile, and web.

> GPT‑Image‑2.5 Sunburst and GPT‑Image‑2.5 Flare are available in the API. See pricing details here.

and the link to the pricing details is a page where i am either too dumb to find the pricing details, or they don't exist

I used it to visualise different arrangements of my furniture and it worked nicely. Personal interior designer

Is this included in the 20/month plan?

I had trouble weeding through all the marketing speak.

  • It must be, I'm not on any plan (free user) and got a modal on ChatGPT.com that let's me use it (for 3 images a day). Should be much higher for Plus users.

Surprised there is no mention of the Sketch feature so far. That's very powerful! I do art on the side and I know no better of getting the result I want than passing in a first draft sketch.

I super encourage others to learn just a little bit of art technique and your images are going to go to the next level. You need a little construction, perspective, gesture, anatomy, and you're pretty much off to the races.

Knowing names of illustration styles is great too. Look up "style transfer" if you are not familiar.

ChatGPT Images is for me the most impresive of all models, but also the one I hate the most, because of what it's used for: either funny wasteful use, or nefarious use, basically nothing else.

  • Just like WordPerfect enabled your mom to create a professional-enough cover letter, ChatGPT allows your mom to send you a more or less visually pleasing virtual birthday card of you wearing a party hat.

I hate so much how every food menu is now AI slop. I wish that was outlawed under false advertising.

Earlier today I couldn't get ChatGPT to draw a horse on the moon. Idea taken from Stable Diffusion's wikipedia page. I tried three times with that prompt, "a photograph of an astronaut riding a horse" and again with a horse on the moon. I got it to do another image. However, the original prompt just worked, though it didn't happen to choose the moon, it didn't say the moon.

Edit: finally, I have my horse on the moon. https://chatgpt.com/share/6aa0627e-b168-83e9-98e5-d5ad5a9cad... Though the horse doesn't have a spacesuit, neither does it have one in the Stable Diffusion wikipedia page.

Edit 2: finally got the kind of result I wanted https://chatgpt.com/share/6aa06813-4818-83e9-9c19-8c8ac9a348... https://chatgpt.com/s/p_359c0c38939c81918addaaa9de196f4e

Coming to HN to read comments on releases like this reminds me that there is a small, vocal minority that is pushing so hard for more and more features like this.

The majority of the world does not want or need any of this, yet the nerds in SF that can hardly hold a conversation with another human being are pumping it out as quickly as they can.

I truly think we're fucked.

  • Do you travel? I've visited several countries in the past couple of years, and everywhere I go I see AI-generated images used widely by businesses.

[flagged]

  • Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN, and particularly not unsubstantive + negative ones, which kill the kind of discussion we're hoping to have here (i.e. curious and thoughtful).

    If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one:

    "Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative."

    • What? He quotes the opening line of the article, and notes that he reacts negatively to it. Interpreting his sentiment as "curmudgeonly" is a clear exaggeration.

      And sure--it isn't a high-substance comment, but it isn't irrelevant either. It was, for a while, the top-voted comment on this whole thread. That shows people resonate with the thought, and it obviously sparked quite a lot of discussion.

      This seriously makes me question your, and our other moderators, motivations. Sad times.

      1 reply →

  • This an oddly cynical comment, that I think says more about the observer than the observed.

    People are having fun making images.

    Like they do all sorts of things on the web.

    Making an image is as simple as visiting a web-page.

    That's it.

    • This i did like 15 images just today, mostly just editing and fixing one of my wifes photos that she wanted the lighting and stuff leaned up with so i decided to test out 2.5... it did a great job, but that was easily 15 images 1 of which was the end result but all 15 count toward that figure, i'd honestly guess its more 1:100-1:500 that actually makes it outside the chatgpt servers

      4 replies →

    • It is 100% not. You can create a whole lot of misinformation with an image. You cannot do that by visiting a website. To dismiss the concern with “people are having fun” is, at best, a naive idea and, at worst, a deliberately deceitful and malicious comment.

      2 replies →

    • I hate it because I hate having to look at these AI generated images. In fact I want an internet where I have to explicitly opt-in to see AI generated content in general.

      4 replies →

    • Yeah seriously, the cultural mindset is so damn kneejerk negative to everything right now. It's pathetic. This is an exciting time, and lots of good things are happening.

      2 replies →

    • this is an oddly dismissive comment that says more about the commenter then what is commented on.

      generating an ai image is vastly more costly than loading a webpage…but still not that costly compared to most other things.

      this is depressing in the same way content slop or fyp feeds are fun.

      if you want a silly pic with ur kids, just pay someone on fiver. it will be only slightly more expensive and likely far more exciting for kids as they have to wait for the dopamine hit.

      3 replies →

    • They're having fun asking a robot to make a picture when they could have learned to make it themselves.

      It's incredibly depressing.

    • Yea, “fun”, sure. I’m sure none of those billions of images were used to lie, mislead, or cheat anyone. I’m sure none of those images were used to create fake news narratives, used in advertisements to bait people into buying fake products, or create misleading mockups of rental properties. Definitely not.

      Nevermind the fact that the examples in OpenAI’s blog post are examples of creating images that have no plausible purpose other than to fake stuff that didn’t happen.

      But yea sure, it’s all just “for fun”. Sure.

      5 replies →

  • The sheer waste that accompanies image and video genAI is actually terrifying.

    I challenge OpenAI to put a "your carbon footprint" field next to each generation. If you have nothing to hide, more information is surely better, right?

    • Every SDXL image uses something like 0.5 Watt-hour. That means that 2000 sdxl images uses about 30 cents of electricity. If we multiply that by 30x for video (a fair assumption for models like minimax H3, which take that much longer to make video), that means you get almost 700 5-second videos for a dollar of electricity, which is about a kilo of carbon dioxide. More or less depending on where your electricity comes from.

      3 replies →

    • I propose they use my body for compost to power their electricity turbines, in exchange for a advance in tokens while I am alive...I am overweight and that is good, more burning mass. We could settle at 2 million USD.

      1 reply →

    • A round trip cross country plane ride for one passenger is equivalent to about 500k - 1 million image generations. So all one has to do to offset their lifetime usage of image generators is forego one vacation. And this of course is only for current day carbon usage, that could go down (or up I guess but compute-wise usually things get cheaper over time).

    • The waste overall for data centers is beyond terrifying. Enough water for 1.2 billion people. It’s like all the GenX and Boomers looked at the challenges younger people will face and decided make it as bad as possible start kicking them in the ribs for good measure.

      Theres going to be a reckoning.

      2 replies →

  • I know of entire media departments that went from - let’s hire an artist and see what they come up with to - let’s produce hundreds if not thousands of images to explore all possible ideas (and end up with something bland anyway).

  • Do you want to know how many identical questions ChatGPT gets asked every week, recomputing its answer each time because people stopped sharing results? I don't, but I'm sure it far exceeds 3 billion. "How to center a div", "how to install this and that package", "what is this pop culture reference", "who is this famous person",...

  • I’m doing renovation . I slap a prompt in a tile store over my room and design several types of tiles and paint from one prompt while causally browsing in almost real time .

    Isn’t that the future ? I generated 200 images alone in this use case .

    What’s the alternative to that ? Send it tomorrow someone who hate their job moving tiles in the toilet , may money , wait 1 week

  • In my home city, I started to see banners all made with AI.

    From my kids schools to banners for food places.

  • Groan. Your comment is the most depressing thing I've read today. What a sad way to look at the world. People are doing stuff and having fun. Meanwhile a whole sub-cult is sucking from the doom straw and mumbling carbon, water, greed, blah. The sport of Golf consumes far more resources than any AI data center.

    • Wow, just a quick check .... it appears you are correct.

        Golf: ~531 billion gal/year
        Data centers: ~17 billion gal/year
        Golf ≈ 31× as much
      

      Indirect Water footprint via Electricity Usage:

        Golf: ~500–531B gallons
        Data centers including electricity: ~228B gallons

      8 replies →

    • I’m not commenting on whether generative AI is especially resource-wasteful or not, but a lot of people online seem to have newly discovered the existence of data centers.

    • Okay, but firstly golf is probably the most useless sport ever and secondly there is more than one AI datacenter.

      Yes, some people have fun, but most of the "fun" nowadays is just endless mindless consumption.

      7 replies →

    • I just ignore most of these people. 99.9% of the time they're losers who peddle misinformation.

  • to be fair you need to create a dozen images to get a decent one. Many times i need to get to almost what i want using paint.net and hope chatgpt removes the aliasing/cleans up the pixel boundaries without messing anything up - i'm not complaining though, still faster and cleaner than photoshop -- when it works

  • May I ask why this is “most depressing thing I have read today”.

    Concerns about misinformation? Compute/energy use? Creative work Replaced by AI?

  • Having a lot of fun with my son using an image of him and dressing him in all kinds of costumes. How is that depressing to you?

    • This is really depressing to me. I think this is abusive.

      Your son has no concept of the implications of his body, face and identifying features being used here. He has no ability to opt-out, refuse consent, and avoid his data (biometric features) being swooped up in a data-centers for further training, further data collection & further monetization.

      Your son didn't agree to the privacy policy of OpenAI. This is an extremely high level of disrespect to a person you created.

      1 reply →

    • If you're not familiar of the pitfalls of this tech, and the fact that there are more ethical tools with which to do those things, I'm not sure what to tell you.

      3 replies →

    • I think @conradludgate was alluding to that we have so much of AI slop these days.

      But I see your point too. I too like to generate cute and funny images and share it with my friends and family.

      But this being done at scale can lead to overall degradation of the online experience.

      13 replies →

    • You're building a weak strawman here. The author didn't call you nor your son out specifically.

    • I wouldn't be uploading pics of my child to platforms that have historically used CSAM to train their models, but hey you do you

  • How many memes/gifs do you think have been created by hand or with generators over the last ~20 years?

    • Not sure you can compare huge ML clusters of GPUs running models in order to do these images, and the typical "meme generator" which is basically a call to imagemagick passing an image and some text.

      1 reply →