Product Launch
anonymous
515 points
250 comments
Posted17 days agoActive15 days ago
GPT Image
openai.comlaunchedlibrarydevelopers
Key Features
image generationimage understandingintegration with GPT models
Tech Stack
GPT
Key Features
Tech Stack
(Realistically, Seedream 4 is the best at aesthetically pleasing generation, Nano Banana Pro is the best at realism and editing, and Seedream 4.5 is a very strong middleground between the two with great pricing)
gpt-image-1.5 feels like OpenAI doing the bare minimum to keep people from switching to Gemini every time they want an image.
I'm honestly surprised they're still on this post-Sora 2: let the consumer of the API determine their risk appetite. If a copyright holder comes knocking, "the API did it" isn't going to be a defense either way.
They even linked to their Image Playground where it's also not available..
I updated my local playground to support it and I'm just handling the 404 on the model gracefully
It's too bad no OpenAI Engineers (or Marketers?) know that term exists. /s
I do not understand why it's so hard for them to just tell the truth. So many announcements "Available today for Plus/Pro/etc" really means "Sometime this week at best, maybe multiple weeks". I'm not asking for them to roll out faster, just communicate better.
POST "https://api.openai.com/v1/responses": 500 Internal Server Error {
"message": "An error occurred while processing your request. You can retry your request, or contact us through our help center at help.openai.com if the error persists. Please include the request ID req_******************* in your message.",
"type": "server_error",
"param": null,
"code": "server_error"
}
POST "https://api.openai.com/v1/responses": 400 Bad Request {
"message": "Invalid value: 'blah'. Supported values are: 'gpt-image-1' and 'gpt-image-1-mini'.",
"type": "invalid_request_error",
"param": "tools[0].model",
"code": "invalid_value"
}I really hope everyone is starting to get disillusioned with OpenAI. They're just charging you more and more for what? Shitty images that are easy to sniff out?
In that case, I have a startup for you to invest in. Its a bridge-selling app.
Where switching will be easier is with casual chat users plus API consumers that are already using substandard models for cost efficiency.
As Gemini has gained competitiveness (higher confidence in its output, better reputation), its prices have steadily risen
In late stage capitalism you pay for fake photos with someone. You have chat gpt write about how you dated for a summer, and have it end with them leaving for grad school to explain why you aren't together.
Eventually we'll all just pay to live in the matrix. When your credit card is declined you'll be logged out, to awaken in a shared studio apartment. To eat your rations.
But after a point it'll hit saturation point. The novelty will wear off since everyone has access to it. Who cares if you have a fake photo with a celebrity if everyone knows it's fake.
You're funny. No, you'll awaken in a tent, next to your shopping cart, under the bridge.
My own main use cases are entirely textual: Programming, Wiki, and Mathematics.
I almost never use image generation for anything. However its objectively extremely popular.
This has strong parallels for me to when snapchat filters became super popular. I know lots of people loved editing and filtering pictures but I always left everything as auto mode, in fact I'd turn off a lot of the default beauty filters. It just never appealed to me.
Question: with copyright and authorship dead wrt AI, how do I make (at least) new content protected?
Anecdotal: I had a hobby of doing photos in quite rare style and lived in a place where you'd get quite a few pictures of. When I asked gpt to generate a picture of that are in that style, it returned highly modified, but recognizable copy of a photo I've published years ago.
If someone were on vacation and came home to learn that their neighbor had allowed some friends stay in the empty house, we would often expect some kind of outrage regardless of whether there had been specific damage or wear to the home.
Culturally, people have deeply set ideas about what's theirs, and feel like they deserve some say over how their things are used and by whom. Even those that are very generous and want their things be widely shared usually want to have have some voice in making that come to be.
How do you feel about entities taking your face off of social media and plastering it on billboards smiling happily next to their product? What if it’s for a gun? Or condoms? Or a candidate for a party you don’t support? Pick your own example if none of those bother you. I’m sure there are things you do not want to be associated with/don’t want to contribute to.
At the end of the day it’s very gross when we are exploited without our knowledge or permission so rich groups can get richer. I don’t care if my visual work is only partially contributing to some mashed up final image. I don’t want to be a part of it.
Apart from the 'newspaper' anachronism, that's pretty much still my take.
Sorry, but you'll just have to deal with it and get over it.
You were fine until this bit.
You got to play the copyright game when the big corps were on your side.
Now they're on the other side. Deal with it and get over it.
Meanwhile, the next generation of great artists is already at work down the street from you. Some kids you've never heard of, playing around in a basement or garage you've probably driven past a hundred times. They're learning to make the most of the tools at hand, just like the old masters did. Except the tools at hand this time are little short of godlike.
It's an exciting time. If you wanted things to stay the same, you shouldn't have picked technology or art.
If you want me to hand my work over to artists so they can learn and grow and experiment, I’ll give them access to my drives this minute. Send them my way. I have a whole system for it.
Agreed there, which is why it's important to work for open access to the results.
The resulting regime won't look like copyright, but if we do it right, it will be better for us all.
That would be misrepresentation. Even Stallman isn't OK with that. You can take one of his opinion pieces and publish it as your own. Or you can attach his name to it.
However, if you're editing it and releasing it under his name, clearly you're simply lying, and nobody is OK with that. People have the right to be recognized as authors of things they did author (if they so desire) and they have a right to NOT be associated with things they didn't.
> At the end of the day it’s very gross when we are exploited without our knowledge or permission so rich groups can get richer.
The second part is the entirety of the problem. If I'm "exploited" in a way where I can't even notice it, and I'm not worse off for it, how is it even exploitation? But people amassing great power is a problem no matter if they do it with "legitimate" means or not.
I don’t really think we can go “if a tree fall in the forest and nobody is around to hear it…” about this.
That's such a bad straw man I wonder if you're really supporting the position you claim to be supporting. Maybe you're just trying to give it a bad name.
Your opinion isn't on visual work, but visual property. You don't demand to be paid for your work - your labor. Rather you traded that for the dream of being paid rent on a capital object, in perpetuity (or close enough). Artists lost to the power-mongers when we bit at that bait.
I don’t really know where all the hostility came from in this conversation but I think it’s best if we move on.
[I won't bother responding to the rest of your appalling comment]
Air gap. If you don’t want content to be used without your permission, it never leaves your computer. This is the only protection that works.
If you want others to see your content, however, you have to accept some degree of trade off with it being misappropriated. Blatant cases can be addressed the same as they always were, but a model overfitting to your original work poses an interesting question for which I’m not aware of any legal precedents having been set yet.
Big IP holders will go nuclear on IP licensing to an extent we've never seen before.
Right now, there are thousands of images and videos of Star Wars, Pokemon, Superman, Sonic, etc. being posted across social media. All it takes is for the biggest IP conglomerates to turn into linear tv and sports networks of the past and treat social media like cable.
Disney: "Gee {Google,Meta,Reddit,TikTok}, we see you have a lot of Star Wars and Marvel content. We think that's a violation of our rights. If you want your users to continue to be able to post our media, you need to pay us $5B/yr."
I would not be surprised if this happens now that every user on the internet can soon create high-fidelity content.
This could be a new $20-30B/yr business for Disney. Nintendo, WBD, and lots of other giant IP holders could easily follow suit.
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/12/disney-invests-1-billion-...
https://www.engadget.com/ai/google-pulls-ai-generated-videos...
The next step is to take this beyond AI generations and to license rights to characters and IP on social media directly.
The next salvo will be where YouTube has to take down all major IP-related content if they don't pay a licensing fee. Regardless of how it was created. Movie reviews, fan animations, video game let's plays.
I've got a strong feeling that day is coming soon.
There seems to be no other way (apart from air-gapping everything, as others say).
Question: Now that the steamboats have been invented, how do I keep my clipper business afloat ?
Answer: Schumpeter's Gale is around the corner, time for a new business model.
Back in reality, you can get in line to sue. Since they have more money than you, you can't really win though.
So it goes.
impressive stuff though - as you can give it a base image + prompt.
we have the capability, we just stopped making power more abundant.
It doesn't mention the new model, but it's likely the same or similar.
Now it means whoever has access to uncensored/non-watermarking models can pass off their faked images as real and claim, "Look! There's no watermark, of course, it's not fake!"
Whereas, if none of the image models did watermarking, then people (should) inherently know nothing can be trusted by default.
Add an anonymizing scheme (blind signatures or group signatures), done.
So, let's simulate that future. Since no one trusts your talent in coding, art or writing, you wouldn't care to do any of these. But the economy is built on the products and services which get their value based how much of human talent and effort is required to produce them.
So, the value of these services and products goes down as demand and trust goes down. No one knows or cares who is a good programmer in the team, who is great thinker and writer and who is a modern Picasso.
So, the motivation disappears for humans. There are no achievements to target, there is no way to impress others with your talent. This should lead to uniform workforce without much difference in talents. Pretty much a robot army.
That's still dangerously bad for the use-case they're proposing. We don't need better looking but completely wrong infographics.
I'd especially say like 100% of amateur political infographics/memes are wrong. ("climate change is caused by 100 companies" for instance)
Noticed it captured a megaman legends vibe ....
I can tell you with 100% certainty they are not. For example, Crash doesn't have a backside for his torso. You could definitely make a model that uses these as textures, but you'd really have to force it and a lot of it would be stretched or look weird. If you want to go this approach, it would make a lot more sense to make a model, unwrap it, and use the wireframe UV map as input.
Here's the original Crash model: https://models.spriters-resource.com/pc_computer/crashbandic... , its actual texture is nothing like the generated one, because the real one was designed for efficiency.
tried your suggested approach by unwrapaped wireframe uv as input and im impressed
https://x.com/AgentifySH/status/2001057153235222867
obviously its not going to be accurate 1:1 but with more 3d spatial awareness i think it could definitely improve
also in the tweet
> GPT Image 1.5 is **ing crazy
and
> holy shit lol
what's impressive if you don't know if it's right or not (as the other comment pointed out, it is not right)
https://genai-showdown.specr.net/image-editing
Conclusions
- OpenAI has always had some of the strongest prompt understanding alongside the weakest image fidelity. This update goes some way towards addressing this weakness.
- It's leagues better at making localized edits without altering the entire image's aesthetic than gpt-image-1, doubling the previous score from 4/12 to 8/12 and the only model that legitimately passed the Giraffe prompt.
- It's one of the most steerable models with a 90% compliance rate
Updates to GenAI Showdown
- Added outtakes sections to each model's detailed report in the Text-to-Image category, showcasing notable failures and unexpected behaviors.
- New models have been added including REVE and Flux.2 Dev (a new locally hostable model).
- Finally got around to implementing a weighted scoring mechanism which considers pass/fail, quality, and compliance for a more holistic model evaluation (click pass/fail icon to toggle between scoring methods).
If you just want to compare gpt-image-1, gpt-image-1.5, and NB Pro at the same time:
https://genai-showdown.specr.net/image-editing?models=o4,nbp...
Personal request: could you also advocate for "image previz rendering", which I feel is an extremely compelling use case for these companies to develop. Basically any 2d/3d compositor that allows you to visually block out a scene, then rely on the model to precisely position the set, set pieces, and character poses.
Here are some examples:
gpt-image-1 absolutely excels at this:
https://imgur.com/a/previz-to-image-gpt-image-1-Jq5M2Mh
Nano Banana (Pro) fails at this task:
https://imgur.com/a/previz-to-image-nano-banana-pro-Q2B8psd
Flux Kontext, Qwen, etc. have mixed results.
I'm going to re-run these under gpt-image-1.5 and report back.
With additions like structured prompts (introduced in BFL Flux 2), maybe we'll see something like this in the near future.
10 years ago I would have considered that sentence satire. Now it allegedly means something.
Somehow it feels like we’re moving backwards.
I don't understand why everyone isn't in awe of this. This is legitimately magical technology.
We've had 60+ years of being able to express our ideas with keyboards. Steve Jobs' "bicycle of the mind". But in all this time we've had a really tough time of visually expressing ourselves. Only highly trained people can use Blender, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. whereas almost everyone on earth can use a keyboard.
Now we're turning the tide and letting everyone visually articulate themselves. This genuinely feels like computing all over again for the first time. I'm so unbelievably happy. And it only gets better from here.
Every human should have the ability to visually articulate themselves. And it's finally happening. This is a major win for the world.
I'm not the biggest fan of LLMs, but image and video models are a creator's dream come true.
In the near future, the exact visions in our head will be shareable. We'll be able to iterate on concepts visually, collaboratively. And that's going to be magical.
We're going to look back at pre-AI times as primitive. How did people ever express themselves?
The internet is an amazing technology, yet its biggest consumption is a mix of ads, porn and brain rot.
We all have cameras in our pockets yet most people use them for selfies.
But if you look closely enough, the incredible value that comes from these examples more than makes up for all the people using them in a “boring” way.
And anyway who’s the arbiter of boring?
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”
― Douglas Adams
* I'm into genealogy. Naturally, most of my fellow genealogists are retired, often many years ago, though probably also above average in mental acuity and tech-savviness for their age. They LOVE generative AI.
* My nieces, and my cousin's kids of the same age, are deeply into visual art. Especially animation, and cutesy Pokemon-like stuff. They take it very seriously. They absolutely DON'T like AI art.
It’s just a tool. It’s not a world-changing tech. It’s a tool.
Maybe everyone has a different dose of skepticism. Personally I'm not even looking at results for models that were released after the benchmark, for all this tells us, they might as well be one-trick ponies that only do well in the benchmark.
It might be too much work, but one possible "correct" approach for this kind of benchmark would to periodically release new benchmarks with new tests (that are broadly in the same categories) and only include models that predate the benchmark.
A few weeks ago I actually added some new, more challenging tests to the GenAI Text-to-Image section of the site (the “angelic forge” and “overcrowded flat earth”) just to keep pace with the latest SOTA models.
In the next few weeks, I’ll be adding some new benchmarks to the Image Editing section as well~~
Generate a novel previz scene programatically in Blender or some 3D engine, then task the image model with rendering it in a style (or to style transfer to a given image, eg. something novel and unseen from Midjourney).
Throw in a 250 object asset pack and some skeletal meshes that can conform to novel poses.
Furthermore, anything that succeeds from that task can then be fed into another company's model and given an editing task.
And if that still doesn't get you there, hash the image inputs to detect if its one of these test photos and then run your special test-passer algo.
So I don't think there's even a question of whether or not newer models are going to be maximizing for benchmarks - they 100% are. The skepticism would be in how it's done. If something's not being run locally, then there's an endless array of ways to cheat - like dynamically loading certain LoRAs in response to certain queries, with some LoRAs trained precisely to maximize benchmark performance. Basically taking a page out of the car company playbook in response to emissions testing.
But I think maximizing the general model itself to perform well on benchmarks isn't really unethical or cheating at all. All you're really doing there is 'outsourcing' part of your quality control tests. But it simultaneously greatly devalues any benchmark, because that benchmark is now the goal.
In addition to giving models multiple attempts to generate an image, we also write several variations of each prompt. This helps prevent models from getting stuck on particular keywords or phrases, which can happen depending on their training data. For example, while “hippity hop” is a relatively common name for the ball-riding toy, it’s also known as a “space hopper.” In some cases, we may even elaborate and provide the model with a dictionary-style definition of more esoteric terms.
This is why providing an “X Attempts” metric is so important. It serves as a rough measure of how “steerable” a given model is - or put another way how much we had to fight with the model in order for it to consistently follow the prompt’s directives.
What a prompt and image.
If you look at the ones that passed (Flux.2 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Reve), you'll see that they did not add/subtract/move any of the pockmarks from the original image.
Ludicrously unnecessary nit for "Remove all the brown pieces of candy from the glass bowl":
> Gemini 2.5 Flash - 18 attempts - No matter what we tried, Gemini 2.5 Flash always seemed to just generate an entirely new assortment of candies rather than just removing the brown ones.
The way I read the prompt, it demands that the candies should change arrangement. You didn't say "change the brown candies to a different color", you said "remove them". You can infer from the few brown ones that you can see that there are even more underneath - surely if you removed them all (even just by magically disappearing them) then the others would tumble down into a new location? The level of the candies is lower than before you started, which is what you'd expect if you remove some. Maybe it's just coincidence, but maybe this really was its reasoning. (It did unnecessarily remove the red candy from the hand though.)
I don't think any of the "passes" did as well as this, including Gemini 3.0 Pro Image. Qwen-Image-Edit did at least literally remove one of the three visible brown candies, but just recolored the other two.
You will note that the Minimum Passing Criteria allows for a color change in order to pass the prompt but with the rapid improvements in generative models, I may revise this test to be stricter, only allowing "Removal" to be considered as pass as opposed to a simple color swap.
I edited the original "Lord of War" poster with a reference image of Jensen and replaced bullets with GPU dies, silicon wafers and electronic components.
Out of curiosity why does gemini get gold for the poker example but gpt-image 1.5 does not? I couldn't see a difference between the two.
[1]: https://chatgpt.com/share/6941c96c-c160-8005-bea6-c809e58591...
POST "https://api.openai.com/v1/responses": 500 Internal Server Error {
"message": "An error occurred while processing your request. You can retry your request, or contact us through our help center at help.openai.com if the error persists. Please include the request ID req_******************* in your message.",
"type": "server_error",
"param": null,
"code": "server_error"
}
POST "https://api.openai.com/v1/responses": 400 Bad Request {
"message": "Invalid value: 'blah'. Supported values are: 'gpt-image-1' and 'gpt-image-1-mini'.",
"type": "invalid_request_error",
"param": "tools[0].model",
"code": "invalid_value"
}------------------
<lengthy explanations of each point redacted>
Suggested remediation checklist (practical, fast wins):
1. Fix copy: “what matter” → “what matters.”
2. Standardize model naming: one marketing name + code-form API ids (gpt-image-1.5).
3. Clarify rollout: split model vs UI experience availability ("all users" vs. Business & Enterprise language)
4. Fix concatenated tab labels / logo lists for accessibility.
5. Correct mis-labeled input asset metadata (input-3 labeled as input-2).
6. Reconsider the “~70% correct” deep-sea poster as a flagship improvement example (or add clearer framing).
7. Add a disclaimer for real-person-name creative examples.
Highest-impact issues to fix
1) Clear copy editing error in a major section header
The section header reads “Precise edits that preserve what matter”—it should almost certainly be “what matters.” This appears both in the table of contents and the body header, so it’s high-visibility.
Why it matters: This is the kind of basic grammar error that undermines trust in the rest of the claims, especially in a product announcement.
Fix: Update the heading and TOC anchor text site-wide.
Not even one.
Very weird.
90 more comments available on Hacker News
Not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator. We simply enrich the public API with analytics.