> Every week, people create more than 3 billion images across ChatGPT Images and the GPT‑Image models in the API<p>Most depressing thing I have read today
This an oddly cynical comment, that I think says more about the observer than the observed.<p>People are having fun making images.<p>Like they do all sorts of things on the web.<p>Making an image is as simple as visiting a web-page.<p>That's it.
If twitter and reddit have demonstrated anything is that the fun people are having with image generation is not healthy.
> That's it.<p>Yeah ignoring the massive environmental, social, and moral implications I suppose it’s not a big deal at all.
The 'environmental' consideration is much less than the argument over 'paper or plastic'.<p>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'.<p>Second - there are really not much in the way 'social or moral implications' for the most part.<p>This is a dystopian delusion that I'm hinting at here.<p>Folks are blowing this <i>way</i> out of proportion, and cynically so.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>But yea sure, it’s all just “for fun”. Sure.
Do you purposefully not use any products that could be used to do anything harmful?<p>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?
Yesterday my wife used ChatGPT to generate an image of our cat as a toilet, which was very funny for the both of us. She's also used it to turn him into a basketball getting dunked, a tsetse fly, a clown and a napkin. It's hard to say whether she uses it more to generate inside joke images about our cat, or to generate mockup plans and layouts for her flower gardens, but it <i>is</i> safe to say she does it all for fun.
Knives are freely sold at shops on every street.
...making a kitten tangled up on a networking cabinet was fun.<p>Some of us find opportunities for the small joys that help offset the background radiation of despair.
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
oh no... it's fun... you got us...
>People are having fun making images.<p>3 billion images per week isn't people, it's automated farms, dogshit marketing companies and other attacks on your brain.
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.
I was watching a friend stream a dead game lately.<p>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.<p>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...<p>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.<p>"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.<p>Weird feeling.
I would imagine a lot of it is mundane shit like getting ChatGPT to render the same room with different coloured walls or provide inspiration on plant pots. I have a decent amount of image usage and it's all things like this, not generating content I intend to distribute.
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.
this is an oddly dismissive comment that says more about the commenter then what is commented on.<p>generating an ai image is vastly more costly than loading a webpage…but still not that costly compared to most other things.<p>this is depressing in the same way content slop or fyp feeds are fun.<p>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.
>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.<p>Or, y'know, learn how to draw, or accept that it's not exactly going to be Chuck Jones caliber stuff.
> if you want a silly pic with ur kids, just pay someone on fiver.<p><i>Incredible</i> alternative. Talk about depressing.
"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 "<p>???<p>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?<p>What are you even talking about?<p>On what level is that either more authentic, better for the environment, more novel ... of frankly better in any way?<p>That is 'not even an argument' - and so you're making my point for me:<p>People can now make images.<p>It's mostly for fun, some of it will be used professional, some Tweets will be a bit more visual - but that's it.<p>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.<p>People are putting this out of proportion.<p>Maybe I'm too old, but I've been around - this is not a big deal in the grand scheme.<p>And it's 'net slightly positive'.
[dead]
You are joking, right? "It's fun. But people are having fun." You literally fake situations and you call that "fun"? Before calling someone else's comment ridiculous, imagine being someone being blackmailed by photos created by ChatGPT Images. You can't. Because it's all "fun", right? Jeez, people like you are totally crazy.
> imagine being someone being blackmailed by photos created by ChatGPT Images<p>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.<p>Whether we like that or not, no one will stop bad actors from attempting to abuse this technology, so democratizing its use <i>does</i> help people to understand how they work and make potential victims much less credulous.
The weirdly narrow and cynical purview of your example proves my point.<p>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.<p>People can now make more expressive images than they could before, which is generally a good thing.<p>Of course, people could always use new technology for negative purposes - and - people have been using Photoshop <i>for decades already</i> to make 'fake nudes' - this is not a new phenomenon.<p>None of this is even a very big deal. We can make images now much more easily, that's it.
The sheer waste that accompanies image and video genAI is actually terrifying.<p>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.
People always napkin math something low, and then every academic who formally studies it ends up with a much higher estimate.<p>I await OpenAI's carbon footprint field.
No way gpt-image-2 is as cheap as SDXL. (I dont concern about gpt-image-2's consumption either, just pointing out it's not a good comparison)
would you like a carbon receipt for your video gaems, netflix, and reddit sessions?
Someone needs to name this fallacy. The existence of existing harmful norms does not, ex ante, justify introducing additional harmful norms. I propose naming it the "GenAI Defender Fallacy".<p>Separately--yes, I would love carbon receipts for everything. Such a system would be fascinating and do real good in this world.
> <i>The existence of existing harmful norms does not, ex ante, justify introducing additional harmful norms</i><p>The point isn't to justify anything.<p>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.<p>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.
It's a combination of argument from analogy and reductio ad absurdum. It's not a fallacy. You're free to dispute the validity of the analogy, or you can dispute the absurdity, which you did, by confirming that you would indeed love carbon receipts for everything.
What's the goal of complaining about it though? What's more likely, you persuade people to stop all of these habits that use electricity that burns carbon, or you convert the electricity supply to renewables?
selective outrage, on the other hand, already has a name.
But is fairness between carbon uses justified? Or we cut the line at some point.
> Someone needs to name this fallacy.<p>Whataboutism?
Whataboutism isn’t a fallacy and is widely misused online.<p>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.
I don’t think that’s whataboutism?<p>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”.<p>It’s a deflection technique, not a check on logical consistency.
<p><pre><code> > “you are saying I am doing X bad thing? What about Y bad thing you’re doing, let’s discuss that instead”.
</code></pre>
no one is generally expecting or even asking for "let’s discuss that instead". what they are doing is trying to point out that your lack of of care about Y implies that you never actually cared about X in the first place but rather you only care about me doing X.<p>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.<p>whataboustism is basically an effort to draw attention to the selective enforcement of norms, laws, morality, whatever. hypocrisy is implied.
It can also be used to derail a conversation. I.e. <i>"I find subject X unpleasant, so I am going to imply that you don't care enough about subject Y, which has a passing similarity to it, so that the subject of the conversation turns to Y rather than X. I do not actually care about subject Y, but I won't say that out loud"</i>. See also <i>"concern trolling"</i>.
Considering that especially leftists have spent literal decades hating on vegans for telling them about their individual footprint, there is no real fallacy here.<p>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.<p>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.<p>How many of you non-vegan AI haters are going to be vegan now?
This is such a strange reply I don't even know what to do with it. Good on you for being vegan, and not prompting?<p>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.
I can acknowledge that I should be vegan and still be unable/unwilling to make the sacrifices to do it.<p>People are flawed.
I've gone chicken only. Mostly because pork and beef are too expensive. It is very hard to get 150+ grams of protein a day on a vegan diet. And butter is in almost every delicious baked good. Avoiding it is like having the worst allergy.
Bad examples. Use meat consumption. It will blow any other kind of "non-essential" resource use out of the water, on ALL fronts.<p>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.
Meat is particularly ironic because it uses an obscene amount of water. Even worse, a lot of the feed for cattle comes from the imperial valley in CA, which has first dibs on the Colorado River, which is on the verge of collapsing. Obviously they aren't cutting usage.<p>But datacenters using water is what the public needs to fear...
Which is, BTW, a funny way of thinking of living creatures.
Jeez where did the vegan touch you?
I personally would love them
that would be actually pretty cool and would cause more awareness for a lot of people. but something like this would go in both directions i am afraid, as with everything there surely would be people trying to do carbonmaxxing just for the sake of it, kind of like breaking a highscore. i am sure people like this already exist anyway, though.
Absolutely, I'd love to see how tiny they are in comparison.
If said game, video, or social media site used 1-2.5 kWh of electricity for every 10s of content then I'd say definitely!<p>Thankfully web browsing is no where near that.
You must have your units really messed up because there's no way that's right. A GPU drawing 700W for 10s would be 1.9444 Wh or 0.0019444 kWh and that's if the GPU was only serving your image gen for the whole 10s which is unlikely, most of the time is probably queuing since even a much lower powered GPU in a desktop PC can generate the same image in well under 10s.
Do you have a source for 1-2.5kWh for 10s of content? It takes about a minute or two to generate, so you'd be talking about a GPU consuming 30_000W-150_000W, it's just not possible. Even if it was distributed (which I don't think it is), that'd be 30-100 datacenter GPUs running at 100% to generate one clip? There's no way that would make financial sense.
_This comment increased sea levels by 0.000000000003m_
And when my "Reddit energy consumption" rose because they migrated from old.reddit.com, to their new bloated frontend, that's _my fault_, right?
I'd love that. What if anything entertainment was required by law to have some value like that, with a standardized calculation?
reddit used to shared how much gold purchases went towards their server costs (pretty sure it wasn't 100% accurate but at least good to an order of magnitude). It was approximately $1/hour and they served ~100M monthly active users. So I don't think those metrics would demonstrate how wasteful traditional data centers are like you think it would.
this would be amazing, absolutely. Especially if they were able to see specifically where my power comes from, the embedded carbon in the chipsets used to serve my requests, all the costs associated with the datacenter(s), etc. A weekly breakdown would be excellent.
Sure, why not.
Yes.
even the whataboutism is slop
You can generate images on 5060ti, it'd take less than minute per image. Trivial environmental footprint.
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.
About the same amount of energy per image as a second of hot shower.
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.<p>Theres going to be a reckoning.
Is it fundamentally different to burning wood just to enjoy watching the flames?
[dead]
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).
In my home city, I started to see banners all made with AI.<p>From my kids schools to banners for food places.
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
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",...
Reading the comments here is worse.
Insert "Quit Having Fun" meme here.
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.<p><pre><code> Golf: ~531 billion gal/year
Data centers: ~17 billion gal/year
Golf ≈ 31× as much
</code></pre>
Indirect Water footprint via Electricity Usage:<p><pre><code> Golf: ~500–531B gallons
Data centers including electricity: ~228B gallons</code></pre>
I just ignore most of these people. 99.9% of the time they're losers.
Okay, but firstly golf is probably the most useless sport ever and secondly there is more than one AI datacenter.<p>Yes, some people have fun, but most of the "fun" nowadays is just endless mindless consumption.
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.
Remind me what golf club comes close to the energy consumption of a data center?<p>Or do you literally mean the entire sport of golf vs 1 data center?
Must be early. Try the news.
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?
Didn't you hear? you must hire a real artist to do that for you or you're exploiting the industry
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.
If you want to discuss a matter, it would be nice to spell out your point of view.<p>How is the person supposed to know your opposing point of view if you don't tell it?
What are some of the more ethical tools? I would like to check them out
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
Its a simple way to feel superior - to sneer at normal people having fun and using technology.
[flagged]
4 minute old account, wonder what you should rename yours to?
It's poor Poster's Bushido to post like that on a throwaway account.
I think @conradludgate was alluding to that we have so much of AI slop these days.<p>But I see your point too. I too like to generate cute and funny images and share it with my friends and family.<p>But this being done at scale can lead to overall degradation of the online experience.
plus the energy cost - <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/12/01/1084189/making-an-image-with-generative-ai-uses-as-much-energy-as-charging-your-phone/" rel="nofollow">https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/12/01/1084189/making-a...</a><p>>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
That's the complaint? That if I make pictures for a few years, let's say on average 1 a day.. it will equal a small errand of carbon?<p>If anything now I feel LESS guilty about usage.
That study is from 2023 when the cost to produce 1000 images was 2.91 Wh per image. More recent numbers for Stable Diffusion's 2025 models that puts it at 1.3 Wh per image and that number continues to decrease.<p>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.
So every day the people of Vermont emit more CO2 just commuting than all image generation through OpenAI per week. Nice. That does put it in perspective. It’s really efficient.
yep, what our climate really needs is another carbon emitter similar to an entire state's worth of vehicles just so people can not pay artists or make dumb images of themselves ripping off some artistic style like Studio Ghibli. that is so much more of a social good than people being able to make it to work and earn a living
1000 images is worth 4miles?<p>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.<p>And that will get more energy efficient. Gas cars have barely budged.<p>Gas cars are the problem, not AI.
This is an embarrassingly idiotic article. They're comparing against the <i>least</i> intensive text model, ie some million parameter model nobody uses. Stable Diffusion is a 3.5 billion parameter model, while the GPT models a billion people are using for text generation are <i>over 10 trillion parameters</i>. To say nothing of the differences in average context size usage. The actual ratio of SDXL to text generation pollution is probably literally reversed from what the article claims by lying with statistics.<p>(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.)
The slop is what upsets me the most right now.<p>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.<p>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?<p>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.
I wouldn't feel comfortable uploading a picture of my child to OpenAI servers (for fun nonetheless), but you do you.
May I ask why this is “most depressing thing I have read today”.<p>Concerns about misinformation? Compute/energy use? Creative work Replaced by AI?
Why?
Typical HN luddite mindset at this point.
This is an exciting time!
How many memes/gifs do you think have been created by hand or with generators over the last ~20 years?
I hope my local kebab shops switch to this for their signs.
This is hilarious and it's killing me people are taking it literally
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.
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)
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
If I eat at a restaurant and that restaurant has images of their food, I want those to be “real images” of what they will bring me when I pay. Otherwise it’s misleading.
I care, the same way I wont read your blog, if you use AI photos. Same mechanism.
It would be an improvement, probably, because they are still using Dall.e 1 apparently.
Loose them on what?
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.
I see a lot of the slop posters in real life now and I hate them
I think every restaurant on Uber Eats in my area uses AI slop or, minimally, AI "enhanced" food pictures.
I see a ton of AI generated images and descriptions on DoorDash. I get the sense the restaurant is not doing it themselves, I’m not sure if they have any control over disabling it or perhaps they are opting in.
Probably some other type of ads '[..] in your area' will use this as well.
I still don't know if I hate them because they are visually slop, or that the businesses farmed out sign creation to the slop machine
If it was only the small shops doing it... companies that could easily hire ad designers use AI slop images full of errors.
[dead]
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.
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.<p>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: <a href="https://jjcm.org/gpt-image-2.5-speed.mp4" rel="nofollow">https://jjcm.org/gpt-image-2.5-speed.mp4</a>
Some UI tests with it:<p>Warcraft 3 style agentic dev interface: <a href="https://image.non.io/cd9ea5cd-8ed7-44e0-ad3f-480ff0e51875.webp" rel="nofollow">https://image.non.io/cd9ea5cd-8ed7-44e0-ad3f-480ff0e51875.we...</a><p>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.<p>A "John Politics" meme site: <a href="https://image.non.io/d2922164-fa96-4d07-a141-2febadb02939.webp" rel="nofollow">https://image.non.io/d2922164-fa96-4d07-a141-2febadb02939.we...</a><p>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<p>A cyberpunk inspired ramen website: <a href="https://image.non.io/8d5d8f10-0f0f-4d91-b5ea-33af7538b150.webp" rel="nofollow">https://image.non.io/8d5d8f10-0f0f-4d91-b5ea-33af7538b150.we...</a><p>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.<p>Overall fixed some of the main issues / gripes I had with gpt-image-2
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.<p>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: <a href="https://image.non.io/d53a9760-8b74-4386-b032-d59da2cd5319.webp" rel="nofollow">https://image.non.io/d53a9760-8b74-4386-b032-d59da2cd5319.we...</a>
Oh, you're the dev of diffui? It's completely off-topic, but I've notice that RMB -> Download image will download an .png but it's actually a .webp and it can cause issues (e.g. file explorer doesn't show thumbnail correctly).
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.<p>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?<p>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?<p>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 <i>were</i> 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.<p>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.'
That was exactly my first reaction!<p>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?<p>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.
<i>Didn't make your bed, no problem, just fake it.</i><p>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.<p>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.
> 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.<p>Well, that's like the entire point of social media anyway, isn't it? People there will _love_ this. Ugh ...
I’m less concerned about faking being at a party with friends and more with the 2006 timestamp on said photo!<p>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!<p>It’s cool, folks… nothing bad is going to happen. Right? Right?!
Is that 5 pillows on the original (messy) bed down to 4 pillows in the clean version?
>The sad part is my mother would love "remixing" my old child photos of me.<p>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.<p>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.<p>AI videos showing you a second life if you just had chosen a different path.<p>People will be depressed from it.
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.
Why do you assume her joy is the sad part?
Memory already declines with age. AI slop threatens to warp those memories further.
This is an artificial modern world problem.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>I wouldnt regulate these aspects, because I believe pandoras box is already wide open. Regulating anything wouldn't change much.
[Cry me a River]<p>No thank you
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.
> Wondering why they chose this edit for the showcase.<p>They probably didn't care to check those images in detail.
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
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.
I know the API (assuming you're using it) lets you set the output size of the edited images - I haven't done a huge amount of testing with > 1mp, so I'd be curious if this might mitigate some of that.<p><a href="https://developers.openai.com/api/reference/python/resources/images/methods/edit" rel="nofollow">https://developers.openai.com/api/reference/python/resources...</a>
The OpenAI PR/doc team seem to have a history of this kind of attention lapse - their 4-panel comic strip using gpt-image-2 was an absolute mess too.<p><a href="https://mordenstar.com/blog/gen-failures" rel="nofollow">https://mordenstar.com/blog/gen-failures</a>
And don't forget the 'Thing' from Addams Family in the shoulder of the guy on the left.
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?!"
Dogs shadow didn't change
A big wtf at the LM Arena scores: <a href="https://arena.ai/leaderboard/text-to-image" rel="nofollow">https://arena.ai/leaderboard/text-to-image</a><p>gpt-image-2.5-sunburst: 1421<p>gpt-image-2.5-flare: 1399<p>gpt-image-2 (medium): 1381<p>mai-image-2.6: 1331<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
> Many people still think AI images output the wrong number of fingers on a regular basis.<p>Last time I used a frontier image model it made me a seal with three hands so…
I mean there's literally one of their example images with hands with the wrong number of fingers.
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.
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.
Still far too expensive.<p>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.<p>I've been using Grok Imagine V1 in prod for months now as its quality for my use-case is already more than enough.
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 can't make sprite sheets :(
It's better to use a specialized model for that <a href="https://retrodiffusion.ai" rel="nofollow">https://retrodiffusion.ai</a>
You can get semi-decent sprite work out of GenAI models, but you still have to put in some manual work (scale normalization, palette reduction, grid alignments, etc). It's definitely not "out-of-the-box" yet.<p><a href="https://mordenstar.com/other/hobbes-animation" rel="nofollow">https://mordenstar.com/other/hobbes-animation</a>
No but it can write a tool that can.
>"Still can't make sprite sheets :("<p>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.
Interesting. I'm surprised they haven't prioritised/deliberately trained for this more because of how useful it is to ask codex to generate some images/assets/sprites when building sill games. It would dramatically enhance how polished it's games were.<p>That said for single images the old model was already okayish for prototypes
Great idea, get an AI art tattoo so you can always be reminded how AI art looked in 2026.
Composite party photo...this is going to revolutionize tinder profiles.
> Arrange these flowers<p>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?<p>There's a lot of drudgery that can be automated away, but this seems to be focused on automating the fun parts away.
Does it still have that distinct off-white shading of previous models though?<p>I'm 99% sure that that is the main tell AI sniffers rely on.
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 used it to visualise different arrangements of my furniture and it worked nicely. Personal interior designer
allllll the way at the bottom<p>> Pricing and availability<p>> Images 2.5 is rolling out today to ChatGPT, ChatGPT Work, and Codex users across all tiers on desktop, mobile, and web.<p>> GPT‑Image‑2.5 Sunburst and GPT‑Image‑2.5 Flare are available in the API. See pricing details here.<p>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 feel it's more like a Nano Banana 2 update. It's <i>much</i> faster than gpt-image-2 but the quality isn't much different.
Is this included in the 20/month plan?<p>I had trouble weeding through all the marketing speak.
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.
wtf are these comments what happened to hn.
Did they fix the noise gradient?
Surprised to see no acknowledgement of how "AI Menu Slop" has become deeply associated with ChatGPT.<p>Everywhere I go now I see places that blatantly used ChatGPT for their menus or posters and they all look the same.<p>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.<p>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'm not sure if I'm working with ChatGPT Images 2.5 or 2.0 here...<p>The original photo I took was at <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Tovala/comments/1pfuwrb/meatloaf_paradise_by_the_heatingelement_light/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/Tovala/comments/1pfuwrb/meatloaf_pa...</a> - 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.<p><a href="https://chatgpt.com/share/6aa05d33-3e6c-83ea-9e32-f1371c1ad663" rel="nofollow">https://chatgpt.com/share/6aa05d33-3e6c-83ea-9e32-f1371c1ad6...</a> ( <a href="https://imgur.com/a/fPB5VKP" rel="nofollow">https://imgur.com/a/fPB5VKP</a> for just the image)<p>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.
It's still more honest than generating virtual kebab.
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
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.)
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
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.<p>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.<p>Knowing names of illustration styles is great too. Look up "style transfer" if you are not familiar.
drink more water is a crazy thing to ai generate
Do all Silicon Valley corporations use the same jingle for their product promotional videos? The creator must be really rich by now.
Ah. Another 3 months delay for gemini-3.5-pro.
Where is Dall-e?
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.<p>Edit: finally, I have my horse on the moon. <a href="https://chatgpt.com/share/6aa0627e-b168-83e9-98e5-d5ad5a9cad03" rel="nofollow">https://chatgpt.com/share/6aa0627e-b168-83e9-98e5-d5ad5a9cad...</a> Though the horse doesn't have a spacesuit, neither does it have one in the Stable Diffusion wikipedia page.<p>Edit 2: finally got the kind of result I wanted <a href="https://chatgpt.com/share/6aa06813-4818-83e9-9c19-8c8ac9a34815" rel="nofollow">https://chatgpt.com/share/6aa06813-4818-83e9-9c19-8c8ac9a348...</a> <a href="https://chatgpt.com/s/p_359c0c38939c81918addaaa9de196f4e" rel="nofollow">https://chatgpt.com/s/p_359c0c38939c81918addaaa9de196f4e</a>
That’s surprising even gpt-image-1 was able to handle the equestrian astronaut prompt pretty trivially, albeit yellow-tinged as all hell.<p>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.<p><a href="https://imgpb.com/HwDVcJo" rel="nofollow">https://imgpb.com/HwDVcJo</a>
Nothing will ever beat this one <a href="https://cf.preview.redd.it/a-photo-of-an-astronaut-riding-a-horse-three-years-apart-v0-xjin9ua4t53g1.png?width=2816&format=png&auto=webp&s=abef836df12cd7ccfa6219369dc4c3f2fb8d2634" rel="nofollow">https://cf.preview.redd.it/a-photo-of-an-astronaut-riding-a-...</a>
feels this something backhanded
The AI tattoo. Hope you don’t have any ragrets.
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.
Does multi turn image consistency mean they have solved the yellow tint issue?
Fine tuned slop. It still isn’t very visually appealing, what’s the end game here?
Trump is going to have so much fun with this!
Is this even public?
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.<p>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.<p>I truly think we're fucked.
[dead]
[flagged]