Also being able to reuse a seed to emulate a InstructPix2Pix architecture is a game changer.
Additionally, the image generation itself is quite different. ChatGPT's DALL-E seems to create much more stylized images - much harder to get plain shots that don't heavily embellish your description.
My own observation: this kind of hack is possible only since/with GPT-4 - it takes an LLM this powerful to reliably extend and enrich arbitrary user input into much longer prompt, that's coherent, consistent, and a plausible (to human) interpretation of the original input.
Now this may fan the flames on the "is it or is it not" AI discussions, but: you could almost say that GPT-4 is engaging in creative process here.
Have you used gpt4?
There's no limit to the available models to generate adult content, but having one that doesn't makes it embedable in other applications.
As I understand it, this is incorrect - all of these outputs are the creations of a machine, and as such are not eligible for copyright protection
Anyway, that may not matter - I think what people are looking for here is the absence of being sued by someone else, not the ability to sue someone else. If I generate an image to put in my companies annual report, I'm not worried about someone else copying the image somewhere else.
"Creations of a machine" is meaningless. Machines are tools we use to be creative, even if we're getting some things out that we do not expect. When a 3D program renders light into a scene, does that mean the image is not copyrightable?
I don't see where in your link it says, as GP did, that "creations of a machine [...] are not eligible for copyright protection."
The guidance says that the author must be human, but that "In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.”
The latter is copyrightable.
"This policy does not mean that technological tools cannot be part of the creative process. "
1. e.g. https://boingboing.net/2023/08/21/federal-judge-says-ai-gene...