| ▲ | rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 15 hours ago |
| 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? |
|
| ▲ | davidweatherall 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Didn't you hear? you must hire a real artist to do that for you or you're exploiting the industry |
|
| ▲ | HDBaseT 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is really depressing to me. I think this is abusive. Your son has no concept of the implications of his body, face and identifying features being used here. He has no ability to opt-out, refuse consent, and avoid his data (biometric features) being swooped up in a data-centers for further training, further data collection & further monetization. Your son didn't agree to the privacy policy of OpenAI. This is an extremely high level of disrespect to a person you created. |
| |
|
| ▲ | handbanana_ 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | fsloth 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you want to discuss a matter, it would be nice to spell out your point of view. How is the person supposed to know your opposing point of view if you don't tell it? | |
| ▲ | freedomben 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What are some of the more ethical tools? I would like to check them out | |
| ▲ | 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | simianwords 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Its a simple way to feel superior - to sneer at normal people having fun and using technology. |
| |
|
| ▲ | ksd482 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think @conradludgate was alluding to that we have so much of AI slop these days. But I see your point too. I too like to generate cute and funny images and share it with my friends and family. But this being done at scale can lead to overall degradation of the online experience. |
| |
| ▲ | conradludgate 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The slop is what upsets me the most right now. 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. | |
| ▲ | paimapi 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | plus the energy cost - https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/12/01/1084189/making-a... >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 | | |
| ▲ | XenophileJKO 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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? If anything now I feel LESS guilty about usage. | | |
| ▲ | Black616Angel 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | But 3 billion pictures per week is equivalent to 12.4 million miles or 639.6 million miles extra per year.*
It's not about you. There are no 3 billion people each creating one picture per week. Its probably more like 10.000 assholes creating 2.5 billion pictures per week to satisfy some stupid online feed and the other users creating a picture per month on average. * if we trust the numbers in the other comment | | |
| ▲ | XenophileJKO 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean that in a big number.. 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.) |
|
| |
| ▲ | Kranar 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. 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. | |
| ▲ | arjie 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | paimapi 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | arjie 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh I think paying people to make 3 billion images would result in far more carbon emissions. Just think about how much CO2 a human emits while painting. The paint, the food. Just for the sake of the climate I would never pay an artist for something like this. | | |
| ▲ | paimapi 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | for sure, because every one of those 3 billion images rendered by human hand and not automated with a tool would exist. we wouldn't have a magnitude smaller number of focused designs, of course, that's definitely not how art and design processes happen | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | whatisthiseven 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 1000 images is worth 4miles? 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. | |
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is an embarrassingly idiotic article. They're comparing against the least 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 over 10 trillion parameters. 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. (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.) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Banditoz 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're building a weak strawman here. The author didn't call you nor your son out specifically. |
|
| ▲ | gloxkiqcza 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wouldn't feel comfortable uploading a picture of my child to OpenAI servers (for fun nonetheless), but you do you. |
| |
| ▲ | lopatin 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not following the news. Why should we not upload pictures of family members to OpenAI? Are any other cloud providers safe? | | |
| ▲ | gloxkiqcza 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I wouldn't/don't really feel comfortable uploading private pictures to any other cloud provider either :). I find OpenAI especially untrustworthy because of their known business practices, unestablished business model and unknown future capabilities and role in society. You cannot take that data back once they have it. The condescending tone was unasked for, apologies to OP for that. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | sensanaty 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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 |
