ChatGPT Images 2.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

[flagged]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The real NFTs where the images we generated along the way

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

Can it generate non halloween version though?

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

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

https://postimg.cc/wyxgCgNY

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

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

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

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

>I think that image cost 40 cents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about the faces of the people ChatGPT killed?

AI will seemingly always be ...

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

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

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

I tried

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dead]

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

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

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

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

.40 cents for high quality output is insanely cheap

it is only going to get cheaper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fascinating, by the way, thank you!

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kasparov vs Karpov ‘87 Olympiad. Move 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It turns out that effort matters

You audit thousands of genAI prototype candidates?

Repetition rather than novelty is good for learning.

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

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

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

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

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

It's not a particularly compelling argument.

No idea why you were down voted, I think that's exactly how this will get used.

I'm already imagining this is how the local live indie band night I sometimes go to will generate poster images each week for the bands that are playing, whether to put up at the venue or post to social media. And the bands might be using it to design images to put on their t-shirts and other merch. I already know some indie bands using this stuff for their album covers.

How do these justify the costs to society?

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

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

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

It's going to mess up accountability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistency? So it fails less often?

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

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

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

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

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

What a rotten exchange.

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

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

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

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

Your quip is pithy but meaningless.

[dead]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Artisanal art" as it were.

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

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

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

Did the same for my front garden.

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

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

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

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

- Vector graphics can more practically be edited.

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

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

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

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

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

You are kidding, right?

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

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

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

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

HN is absolutely not more critical of AI output than the norm.

It's been true for various technologies that HN (and tech audiences in general) have a more nuanced view, but AI flips the script on that entirely. It's the tech world who are amazed by this, producing and being delighted by endless blogposts and 7-second concept trailers.

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

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

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

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

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

> Seems good enough to generate 2D sprites.

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI for textures for over a decade? What AI?

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

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

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

Maybe so, but to me it conveys a headache.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denial is real…

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

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

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

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

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