ChatGPT Images 2.5

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.

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.

What percentage is benign?

Do you have a source?

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.

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 echos sentiments of painters, intellectuals and odd religious moralists and other rabble rousers who spent decades raving against 'tHe eVIL pHoToGRaPH' in late 19th and early 20t century.

People can now make more expressive images than they could before, which is generally a good thing.

Of course, people could always use new technology for negative purposes - and - people have been using Photoshop for decades already to make 'fake nudes' - this is not a new phenomenon.

None of this is even a very big deal. We can make images now much more easily, that's it.

If anything, the fact that I know for a fact that I can, in 45 seconds, generate an image of any arbitrary person holding Solo cups at a party arm in arm with Vladimir Putin (to crib an idea from one of the demos) should make everyone less and less susceptible to blackmail in general - in fact, even if the source material is real! There was a time 40 years ago when a photograph's existence was considered proof of a fact - the existence of Photoshop-like tools made that into a weak proof, and the existence of genAI has made "a photograph" into a format that is known to be as malleable as a .txt file.

Whether we like that or not, no one will stop bad actors from attempting to abuse this technology, so democratizing its use does help people to understand how they work and make potential victims much less credulous.

I await OpenAI's carbon footprint field.

Separately--yes, I would love carbon receipts for everything. Such a system would be fascinating and do real good in this world.

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.

Thankfully web browsing is no where near that.

Most are closed systems. Water gets recycled. Water gets used like bathtubs and water bottles, right?

You cannot believe water is destroyed.

How is the person supposed to know your opposing point of view if you don't tell it?

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

https://www.reddit.com/r/HelloInternet/comments/f0wuej/are_y...

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.

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.