ChatGPT Images 2.5(openai.com) |
ChatGPT Images 2.5(openai.com) |
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.
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."
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.
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.
Yeah ignoring the massive environmental, social, and moral implications I suppose it’s not a big deal at all.
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 billion images per week isn't people, it's automated farms, dogshit marketing companies and other attacks on your brain.
It's incredibly depressing.
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.
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?
Theres going to be a reckoning.
I ask a question to google and i spend 10-100 times longer visiting multiple websites making multiple servers generate webpages wasting electricity and time reading them finding my answer, trying different solutions
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
From my kids schools to banners for food places.
Golf: ~531 billion gal/year
Data centers: ~17 billion gal/year
Golf ≈ 31× as much
Golf: ~500–531B gallons
Data centers including electricity: ~228B gallonsOr do you literally mean the entire sport of golf vs 1 data center?
Yes, some people have fun, but most of the "fun" nowadays is just endless mindless consumption.
Concerns about misinformation? Compute/energy use? Creative work Replaced by AI?
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.
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.
The problem isn't primarily with the comment, and in that sense conradludgate did nothing wrong. The problem is the upvotes. If it weren't for those, such comments wouldn't rise to the top and choke out more interesting conversation. But they routinely do, and that's one of the biggest problems we have here.
But respect to you for replying to me. I wish you only the best in moderating, and I hope that this forum can remain healthy--especially in a time where enormously well-funded actors are flexing their power to set the narrative they want.
To be clear, I don’t mind a well-reasoned negative take on something, but much of the negatives takes I see here these days isn’t much better than Reddit, just hyper-exaggerated bitching and moaning about everything.
Incredible alternative. Talk about depressing.
???
You mean to imply there's something 'more authentic' about paying $5 for a random Philippino guy to use Photoshop to mix-up some family photos with sticker overlays?
What are you even talking about?
On what level is that either more authentic, better for the environment, more novel ... of frankly better in any way?
That is 'not even an argument' - and so you're making my point for me:
People can now make images.
It's mostly for fun, some of it will be used professional, some Tweets will be a bit more visual - but that's it.
It's not going to change that much, and it's generally better on the whole for people to be able to create what they want.
People are putting this out of proportion.
Maybe I'm too old, but I've been around - this is not a big deal in the grand scheme.
And it's 'net slightly positive'.
Or, y'know, learn how to draw, or accept that it's not exactly going to be Chuck Jones caliber stuff.
It takes about 7 minutes for my RTX 5090 to generate a 15 second video with MiniMax H3. At 600 watts, that's 252,000 watt-seconds, or 0.07 kilowatt-hours.
My electricity is 18 cents/kWh, so $0.0126. Just a little over a penny.
I await OpenAI's carbon footprint field.
Most are closed systems. Water gets recycled. Water gets used like bathtubs and water bottles, right?
You cannot believe water is destroyed.
That game was developed before generating images became widespread, and sunset as that "art form" started really taking off (game-as-a-service... probably partly reverse engineered and retooled with AI too). So during its lifetime, it was pretty much AI free.
I remember having been seduced by that game's art style at the time. It wasn't "the usual guys with futuristic guns and armor", it had some stylization as well, nice color...
Watching the stream, it occurred to me that it was in fact artwork from "the days before", in a way I hadn't been hit with until that point, even as a returning artist looking at pre-AI works.
"People came up with the concepts and developed and rendered them themselves", I thought to myself. Not in a "oh look, floppy disks. How quaint!" way, either.
Weird feeling.
I forgot that once there existed a magical time when human beings used to write Medium articles by hand.
That's going to be an issue of regulation and cost - not some arbitrary decision over 'whether I should make an image or just use text'.
Second - there are really not much in the way 'social or moral implications' for the most part.
This is a dystopian delusion that I'm hinting at here.
Folks are blowing this way out of proportion, and cynically so.
People now have 'automated Photoshop' and a slightly more power to express themselves. It's not going to change that much, and it's not a bad thing, it's a good thing. Mildly.
Citation needed.
More to the point: both can be bad. We don't let people run stop signs because running red lights is worse.
What percentage is benign?
Do you have a source?
... for almost the last 40 years
"a deliberately deceitful and malicious comment."
This is a 'lost contact with reality' type of thing to say.
This thread is not about AI, it's entirely about people's ability to ground reality.
[1] https://petapixel.com/2015/02/20/a-blast-from-the-past-demos...
A hammer is great for pushing nails into wood. It also can crack someone’s skull with efficiency. I’m assuming you do not use hammers then, right?
Some of us find opportunities for the small joys that help offset the background radiation of despair.
Well, that and infographics on what to do when the AI's start to take over.
How is the person supposed to know your opposing point of view if you don't tell it?
We need more green spaces, we need people to be active. Golf is a fairly quite sport, animals do foster around the greenery with golf courses. I would much rather a golf course than hot concrete everywhere.
golf is generally a huge waste of space for the amount of value we get from it per person and should have no place anywhere near a population center where we actually need more green space.
a golf course... at BEST has two or three foursomes on each hole on average at a time. so 36-48 players concurrently. accounting for less than perfect utilization it rounds to a rough throughput of about 1000 people per day per course. winter Exists and so you probably get like 20-50k people per year.
or maybe an easier term would be the estimated 160m people who played golf at least once last year.
which means that not only are we using that much water for so few people (.002% of the population) we are also reserving all of that space for so few people. for courses out in the middle of nowhere that doesn't matter but for example are thousands of acres of courses inside and near cities. one in LA reported 117k visits one year and that required dawn to dusk 365 play only possible in a climate like LA.
A typical course is ~150 acres so we could fit 50 soccer fields into that same space and service 3.2 million players. Ill spare the envelope math but its pretty hard to come up with any other use for that space/water that could serve less people.
ok one more example that doesn't need water either. just up the street from the high volume golf course is runyon canyon. similar size 150 acres, serves 1.5m visits a year.
Basically golf is a major waste of resources for very little benefit in basically every way possible, and should be zoned out of existence.
you aren't countering my core point that golf courses is the possibly the worst use of space and basically anything else would serve the same or better utility for way more people.
heck keep it golf but switch to driving ranges and its still like 10x more capacity for users than golf courses.
counter arguments that point out other things that are still 10x better uses of space than golf are not very compelling. a sports arena that serves 2.5m people/year is a terrible argument against a golf course that maxes out at 117k. (using sofi in LA numbers as its a similiar footprint as well 150acres)
im also not saying abolish golf, just only play it in places where the space/water use dont matter. like rural scotland. don't put golf courses in/near cities where we should use our space better.
AI is: 'my wife wanted better lighting in our reno pic thingy'
This is healthy and way in the range of normal, not dystopian.
I don't understand what is dystopian about this: With the exception of mildly elevated resource consumption to achieve the end goal (a nicer photo), is this not the sort of things that humans have been wanting and doing for as long as photographs have been a thing?
It was previously mostly unachievable for regular people to have their snapshots processed in such a way, but it feels like it's just making what used to be special mildly trivial. Anyone who has had their wedding photographed for the past 20 years has had the photos touched up on the way through. Any school portrait for just as long.
100 years ago people would dodge and burn photographic prints to improve them as much as the technology allowed. This is just the forward evolution of that old tale.
Maybe slightly odd is how anyone could possibly think I was being sarcastic. :)
I'm not attacking you here or anything :)
I'm just a bit shocked at how cynical people can be. The thought would not cross my mind ... and I'm a skeptic of many things!
There's a video somewhere of some people in Wyoming, riding horses.
All of the comments are young people shock of these 'boomers' committing 'animal abuse'.
I mean ... just ranchers riding horses.
People think that 'Ward Cleaver' form 'Leave It To Beaver' is some 'creepy twilight zone figure' ... when he's just literally a nice guy. Or rather the character is.
We're getting way to jaded!
So - I really mean it: AI is going to be mostly very pedantic stuff.
I witnessed the birth of computers and the internet - and while AI is definitely a big deal ... I think it's just going to feel like 'more computing stuff' in the end.
Computers started out for Science - then it became about video games, socialization, design, commerce, and of course 'gambling and porn' and all the 'same vices'.
Every step of the way there were people thinking it was being 'debauched' etc..
AI is going to be about the most mundane things, just as most technology is today.
It will be boring and in the background, and probably weird like a poorly designed, slow web-page full of cruft, but it will 'do the thing'.
(hint : it's not all regex and checksums.)
My counter point was that everything we do doesn't have to be motivated by efficiency gains. Sports, golf especially, isn't trying to cram the most people possible into a small space.
By your own logic, we should replace soccer fields with kicking a ball into a net.
The main point is people worrying about resources and how to allocate them. We are creatures who want joy and I will not apologize for that. Certainly in face of abstract things such as "the environment". Which environment? I am a humanist. That definition varies. Golf is not the problem sorry to pick on it!
The fact is, at this point there is so much demand for DC capacity that the prices are super high, and thus it's worth building them. Many people believe that it's a bubble or whatever. If they're right, well then a lot of people building DCs right now will lose their shirts. If they're wrong and the demand is sustained, DCs are exactly what we need to be building.
It's not really arbitrary though, is it? It's decided by duly-elected representatives who answer to the citizens of the municipality. A government "of the people", etc.
I feel like what you're arguing against is precisely why we have local governments in the first place.
Not even close, you're off by a few orders of magnitude. You can also easily find this info online https://www.electricchoice.com/datacenters/
The rest are nice to haves, but not everyone customizes settings just because they are there so there will be some large pool of users with the defaults who could hit cache without them.
Some people feel the need to attach an image to almost everything the post - even in chat rooms (including slack at work). These images serve no purpose, but the poster feels it is useful - though it was often reaction gifs in the past I'm seeing a lot more AI content than I ever saw reaction gifs, maybe because of novelty or maybe because it's ultra personalised.
Sometimes images help to visualise something or to get a point across, but I see so many people who think it's necessary to reply to a discord message with a cat with human limbs doing a dance, or a photo of "themselves" climbing a mountain with the Rust logo to show them mastering Rust... Ok?
Image models are useful and I'm thankful for much better visual reasoning but it really really frustrates me the constant need to burn money for all of this slop.
>Generating 1,000 images with a powerful AI model, such as Stable Diffusion XL, is responsible for roughly as much carbon dioxide as driving the equivalent of 4.1 miles in an average gasoline-powered car. In contrast, the least carbon-intensive text generation model they examined was responsible for as much CO2 as driving 0.0006 miles in a similar vehicle
If anything now I feel LESS guilty about usage.
* if we trust the numbers in the other comment
For context that means a days worth of image generation emits about the same amount of carbon dioxide as a single transatlantic flight (New York to London). There are approximately 1500 transatlantic flights per day.
Ours cars are atrocious. We can have the most powerful artificial minds imagine 1000 images from simple prompts, and that takes as much energy as moving a human being 4 miles.
And that will get more energy efficient. Gas cars have barely budged.
Gas cars are the problem, not AI.
(Note, however, that OpenAI's image model is much much larger than SDXL; however, we don't have precise numbers for it. Nonetheless, misinformation is misinformation.)
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.
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.
The original photo I took was at https://www.reddit.com/r/Tovala/comments/1pfuwrb/meatloaf_pa... - it's a cheeseburger meatloaf with potato wedges taken with a phone camera. And I was going for a consistent documentation approach for the photograph, not trying for menu proper.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6aa05d33-3e6c-83ea-9e32-f1371c1ad6... ( https://imgur.com/a/fPB5VKP for just the image)
I suspect that someone doing a menu could take a properly plated meal from the kitchen (rather than me photographing on top of my oven) and have it get redone for a good image for a menu without fundamentally changing what is being served.
I had trouble weeding through all the marketing speak.
Yesterday tried GPT-6-Astra Light to have a kitchen remodel... well it did understand 2D space, an improvement when tried on GPT-5.6-Sol
But the image representation was way off and I was not satisfied... misplaced the window, drew a wall which was not on 2D image, cabinet size issues. Eh.
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.
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
For the heck of it, I ratcheted up the difficulty of the prompt (two-headed horse, astronaut with the visor up, etc.), and gpt-image-2 got it right every time.
text-to-text is a solved problem.
Congress could pass a law tomorrow, or California could pass a ballot measure with a 100% Yes vote, saying (for instance) that some random company now belongs to the government, or to Gavin Newsom personally, or to me, but the courts would still be obligated to strike it down since that grossly violates the Seventh Amendment. Ideas like this are commonly referred to as being checks against "mob rule" - the system recognizes that 'what the people want' isn't necessarily supreme when it runs up against other people's recognized rights.
It equals around 0.004% of actual driven miles if my estimates are right.
That is with an estimated ~270 billion miles vehicle miles every week (I put commercial in there.. about ~200 billion miles if you only include passenger vehicles.)
If it doesn't look like the food you're about to purchase, yes? Why is this even a question in this context.
(Have also heard about people - not just scammers/spam operations - using generated pictures and descriptions for dating profiles and real estate ads, and I cannot understand what outcome they expect when someone follows up and immediately realizes what's up)
That's not a function of improvement in models, though, which was the question. You could literally do that today, no need to wait for models in "2-3 years".
Separately--yes, I would love carbon receipts for everything. Such a system would be fascinating and do real good in this world.
The point isn't to justify anything.
It's to put things into perspective, and give people a more informed and holistic point of view, and then to ask them to reconsider their opinions in light of more information. There's nothing bad about that. In fact it's a good thing.
Especially in a world where people are so easily misled by others who cherrypick unexceptional statistics and then intentionally present them as exceptional in order to generate outrage, retweets, clicks, whatever.
Whataboutism?
If someone says “I think x should stop because of y”. It is a valid argumentative response to say “y also occurs with z, so should z also stop?”. It is argumentatively revealing either hypocrisy, or that the original imperative relies on additional, unstated arguments/assumptions/biases.
AI haters have somehow discovered personal responsibility. Awesome. They've never ever applied that to anything else they PERSONALLY do, though. It's only things others do. For any personal choices, suddenly it's all the governments fault or the corporations fault. No personal responsibility to be seen.
My 5-ish years of veganism have easily made up for a life time of prompting. Yet, I still would never generate video or images in part because of their impact.
How many of you non-vegan AI haters are going to be vegan now?
I have gone lacto-ovo vegetarian in the past year, so I'll take your 5 years of veganism as inspiration. Otherwise, I welcome people waking up to the harm they cause, regardless of their past hypocrisy.
People are flawed.
It's really hard to believe that people care about the personal impact of their decisions, when it's only ever other peoples decisions that get talked about.
But datacenters using water is what the public needs to fear...
It’s be like if your 2001 BMW car was super fuel efficient, and then for whatever reason the 2028 model guzzled gas and you chose to buy it anyway
Just because the thing you did once upon a time was efficient, does not mean you have a lifetime pass to engage with it no matter the updated circumstances
Thankfully web browsing is no where near that.
Maybe I’m confused, but I thought whataboutism was more like “you are saying I am doing X bad thing? What about Y bad thing you’re doing, let’s discuss that instead”.
It’s a deflection technique, not a check on logical consistency.
> “you are saying I am doing X bad thing? What about Y bad thing you’re doing, let’s discuss that instead”.
often times X is actually bad but human nature is such that no one actually cares about it while wanting to appear to when locked down on it. for this reason arguing about X directly is bad optics.
whataboustism is basically an effort to draw attention to the selective enforcement of norms, laws, morality, whatever. hypocrisy is implied.
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
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
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'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...
The sad part is my mother would love "remixing" my old child photos of me.
I just tried out the new version of ChatGPT to generate images for the main characters in a concept art style and for me it makes the story come to life a bit more.
I also run a Pathfinder Campaign every other week and have found great pleasure visualizing scenes in this way for myself. Sometimes I share them with the players and so far the feedback on that has been very positive.
I wish I could picture things in my mind but at least now I have something that can help me with my handicap!
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)
There's literally an image of a dude with 3 fingers in the Composite Party Photo.
Last time I used a frontier image model it made me a seal with three hands so…
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.
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?
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.
Added support for GPT 2.5
The key is making them one frame at a time, rather than asking for the whole sheet. Adherence frame-to-frame with a reference image is really good, so just prompt with the previous + direction. I finally got Nano Banana to make fairly decent fluid animations that way.
That said for single images the old model was already okayish for prototypes
Does anyone here know which AI tool is good for this usecase?
I've tried Gemini and Adobe Firefly with 2 keyframes, but they cannot do looping animations, and they seem to have trouble getting icons right (they invent features that I don't want).
https://generative-ai.review/2026/09/rush-openai-image-gen-2...
right, off to bed now
It’s just not the same child.
I know we’re gonna get there eventually, but still, seeing as this is their first demo image on the page I just can’t help but scream inside “HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS?”
It really makes me question whether the people building, or at least the people marketing this, actually understand their product. I love image generation for all kinds of use cases, but I find that particular example creepy.
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.
I think companies trying to sell image gen at this point are just banking on ignorance.
I'm 99% sure that that is the main tell AI sniffers rely on.
Let's see Paul Allen's card.
> 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
Same price as image-2, and I'm guessing it's not more tokens (given the speedup).
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?
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.
It's very sad.
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?
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.'
Mark where you at the party today? Yes of course look at these pictures I took (╥﹏╥)
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.
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?
It's not about the bed.
People areaddicted to generating now.
Slopoholics the whole bunch of them.
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?!
Well, that's like the entire point of social media anyway, isn't it? People there will _love_ this. Ugh ...
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.
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.
No thank you
How is that sad? Why is your mothers joy sad?
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.
They probably didn't care to check those images in detail.
https://developers.openai.com/api/reference/python/resources...
Edit: I feel stupid I didn't see the original OP already mentioning three finger issue. I'll just leave it here.
- 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)
I think this is because recently there has been extreme backlash to this sort of thing.
There's no way to win in that situation anyway - if you said "yes I think it'd look great!" and then they went and got their hair cut to match your suggestion but didn't like it, is it your fault for saying "yes"?
What else could they highlight? The other major use case for these models for normal people (generating NSFW images) is explicitly blocked by them.
Previously, I would either not have illustrations or try to fit a stock image to my use case.
Now I can just generate illustrations that fit my use case well, and it takes very little effort.
Mine is just one out of thousands of conceivable use cases for image generation and editing. I appreciate that this capability is now available to everyone.
Realize the people using this to make slop menus and book covers feel the same way, wow this is useful and saves me so much time/money!
But good art and especially animation, beyond basic UI and logos, is a full-time commitment that requires giving up coding while you're working on the visuals (yes many great solo devs did their own art, but I prefer using the extra time on other shit, like making music and getting on with life)
Getting a good meat-based artist to hop on my Awesome Game Idea #458235 is easier if I can show them a running gameplay example, so they can see what the actual game will be like.
Up until recently I was just using free third-party asset packs like Kenney's: https://kenney.nl/assets/1-bit-pack
That works well but carries a risk of "painting yourself into a corner"; the longer you test a game in a particular art style (or music) the more you subconsciously tend to develop the rest of the game around that style! At least for me
AI-generated PLACEHOLDER art lets me iterate on a game closer to how I envision the final product to look like, right from Day 1.
I'd still hire/kidnap an actual artist before publishing.
The agentic tooling in some of the latest models is getting pretty crazy too - somebody on Reddit recently shared an example of using GPT-6 Astra to generate sprites with Aseprite, an open-source, popular pixel art editor and it worked shockingly well.
I have abandoned the work I was doing, but if you provide the image constraints along with some examples and descriptions of those examples using the terminology of your constraints, you should get something iterable.
I meant to say when they launched their promo [1] for Siri AI. Can’t find a non IG link, sorry.
If those are the kinds of books you have in mind I can see why you get confused/frustrated by how others feel about slop, since you’ve been shoulder deep in it for your whole life!
It's not an alternate reality. I was laughing at the time almost certainly. New ways of seeing old memories really needn't be depressing at all. It's so strange how so many people seem to only see the bad in a technology that can be used in countless different ways.
techbro final boss
Edit: confirmed that the download should be fixed now - should be properly a png now.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HelloInternet/comments/f0wuej/are_y...
AI, in some ways, might be our only saving grace at this point. It sure as Hell cannot cause people to do much worse.
But I can’t stand elaborate descriptions (it’s almost always landscapes, rarely do authors feel the need to describe anything in as excruciating details as landscapes), which might be related to those descriptions not building up to some kind of image in my head.
I have a friend who only reads fiction for which he's seen the accompanying show first because he otherwise has no visual reference for the characters and environments.
Is it? I’ve never really researched common aphantasia behavior, but I’ve seen many mentions of aphantasia in fantasy/scifi subreddits where those of us with it still love reading. I can imagine (heh) it, but I wonder if there’s some kind of data regarding it?
For me personally reading is still interesting and can be very engaging, but due to the logic of the story, characters, and universe; for lengthy descriptions of the appearance of the environment or the characters I quickly glaze over and get bored because they just don't do much for me (unless the appearances have some semantic significance in the story).
Is spending time with your friends not enough in 2026? Do we must provide photographic evidence of all the fun you have been having or it did not happen?
So many people I just stopped spending time with altogether as instead of being present they’d be posing for their 90th instagram shot by 10am - and then of course they want you to pose, too.
So no. Spending time with your friends is not enough in 2026. I’m not even convinced people have friends now - just colleagues and mutual parasites.
I was in France the other month and walking down to the river in Saumur, I noticed an area serving drinks (out of an old converted bus) with lights and suchlike (opposite the castle on the hill), with a small acoustic band. Nobody (and I mean nobody) had their phone out. The couple of hours I spent there, nobody was observable taking selfies. The age range was from young to old.
I was shocked. It was very different from the UK. Refreshingly so.
Most everyone over 40 or so, talking. Most everyone under 40, preening and posing. I saw so many people holding plates awkwardly in midair to get a picture of themselves, the food, the bunting etc. - to the extent that the organisers were having to ask people to move along so others could order.
Then again this was the Dordogne which may as well be Bognor at this point.
This is easily observable in literally any social situation.
