Show HN: I used OpenAI's new image API for a personalized coloring book service (clevercoloringbook.com)
Last month, when OpenAI's Sora was released for public use I (foolishly) thought I'd manually drag-and-drop each order’s photos into Sora's UI and copy the resulting images back into my system. This took way too much time (about an hour for each of the few books I made and tested with family and friends). It clearly wasn't possible to release this version because I’d be losing a huge amount of time on every order. So instead, I decided I'd finish off the project as best I could, put it "on ice," and wait for the API release.
The API is now released (quicker than I thought it'd be, too!) and I integrated it last night. I'd love your feedback on any and all aspects.
The market is mostly family-based, but from my testing of the physical book I've found that both adults and kids enjoy coloring them in (it's surprisingly cathartic and creative). If you would like to order one you can get 10% off by tapping the total price line item five times.
202 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 270 ms ] threadMaybe worth trying to train a better style for this. This is probably something where you could put a little effort in up-front (ie: using a model that's for segmentation to get outlines, using some classic image-processing for boundary detection) and then have AI touch it up a little more lightly and a less of the "default" style.
Also, do you have AI images for the "real world" samples on the left? They have a certain "I don't exactly know what, but it's creeping me out" vibe.
I think the Ghiblipocalypse has gotten people on edge.
Here's some generic cartoon styles to look at: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5f/04/ef/5f04ef77ce3beb272a61...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43801189
Not that I wouldn't similarly expect it from Miyazaki in terms of general generative art but the actual source of all the articles/memes about his quote point to a 2016 video where he's being demo'd a disturbing 3D simulation of an oily looking human figure crawling on the ground by its head while the dev explains to Miyazaki and others that 'it feels no pain so it learned to move by its head' and it could be used for horror games.
It's then that Miyazaki expresses the 'insult to life itself' quote and explains the devs have no idea what human pain is. Makes one wonder how the devs thought the reaction would be any different tbh.
Edit: reading that he clarified in an interview[1] a couple years later that his distaste was due to believing the dev was aiming at humorizing such body contortions of realistic humans which he took issue with.
[1] https://realsound.jp/tech/2018/10/post-270755.html
> Miyazaki was shown an AI-generated character. The character was a scary monster that used its head as a leg because it couldn’t feel pain. The person presenting it said its movements could be used in making a zombie video game.
To which he stated:
> Every morning, not in recent days, I see my friend who has a disability. It’s so hard for him just to do a high five; his arm with stiff muscle can’t reach out to my hand. Now, thinking of him, I can’t watch this stuff and find it interesting. Whoever creates this stuff has no idea what pain is. I’m utterly disgusted. If you really want to make creepy stuff, you can go ahead and do it. I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all. I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.
Miyazaki also said (in response to the Charlie Hebdo murders): "For me, I think it's a mistake to make caricatures of what different cultures worship. It's a good idea to stop doing that." I still love the man and his work, but he's not some infallible authority on what is and isn't appropriate in art.
The cartoon owl at the top has a different vibe and would probably work for the comics as well.
> Make this a page in a colouring book. The drawing is in a simple Studio Ghibli portrait style. Bleed all the way to the edges. Background colour is #ffffff and lines are bold and #000000. There is no shading or crossthatching.
It seems the loophole on this site, is the examples (by my best guess) are AI.
I put that line about OpenAI's usage policy there for practical reasons. If someone orders something that OpenAI refuses to generate (like a photo of Bart Simpson say), then I can't include it in the printed book. With this project, if someone uploads content that's in any way inappropriate, we'll see it and refuse to fulfill the order (and take other appropriate actions, if needed)
I'd like to see what a real physical book looks like before I buy it though. Do you have real pictures of a printed one?
I think our kids would appreciate seeing the original (even if a small thumbnail) along side it. You can't always tell from these AI drawings that it was originally you and your family.
Also, it's REALLY expensive. $30 for a book that my kids will draw on in one or two nights and then never touch again is probably too much.
$24 + postage is the lowest I could reasonably charge for this. Printing costs are a bit more than half of that, OpenAI charge a surprising amount for image generation, but there is also a good amount of human effort (and creative choices) in generating the book. It's not a fully automated process and I hope that's evident from the quality of the end product.
Things like your coloring book, instant sticker/tshirt/swag creation, video game assets, etc.
Also love the "tap 5 times for a discount" feature.
Cool idea. I can see keeping colored pages of these by my kids up on the fridge a lot longer than what’s on there now!
I guess what you see as “stealing” I see as inspiration. I also believe that there will be artists who use these new artistic image generation models in ways that are new and interesting just like the first person who used spray paint for graffiti was ripped off by everyone else.
It delighted my kids to see themselves depicted in coloring sheets in situation where they are currently interested. There is no world where I would have paid an artist to make these photos, and we would have just colored on blank paper.
Again, I get that real people’s content was devoured by these big companies, but at the same time I am much more concerned about bigger issues and would rather focus on getting ahead of AI rather than fighting it.
Anyway, the problem isn't with automation, as per usual it's with animalistic, selfish human beings who would rather hate each other while the rich get richer, rather than vote to implement a well needed framework to set up UBI, proper taxation of corpos, etc.
But nah, that person has a different skin colour than mine, that person has different sexual preferences to mine.
I do hope the machines take the reigns at some point.
I don't think you're worthless at all. And families come in many shapes and forms.
Almost nobody is paying $100 or more for a custom 5-page coloring book.
This service isn’t taking work from human artists.
And by all I mean the AI companies owe a huge debt to all humans who wrote or designed or drew anything. The vast majority of the benefit of this technology relies on volume: the billions of pages and lines of code we wrote for other humans, but have now been repurposed. This technology relies on bulk, which was mainly unprofessional or freely given content, by those who intended it for other humans. It was not 100% built only on the output of the few who charge for their exquisite words or designs, even if their output is higher quality.
Alternatively, let the AI companies go for it but everyone who uses any kind of AI should understand that they’re standing on the shoulders of the millions of developers and nonprofessional writers whose work has now been repurposed. Not the few artists and journalists. So those artists and journalists should both refuse to contribute to, and use, AI.
* I’ve written very little of this useful content, but would be happy to pay my share to those that have built what we have. I also turn off training on my content, but I pay a lot for models. Feel free to help me think through this with comments of your own.
There is certainly a contribution in improving how the body of work is represented but we treat the “AI” as the smarts, when really it’s a lens on the collective knowledge we have built. You can make the lens better, bit not claim ownership of the body of work. Right now that’s what’s happening, with a few edge cases for artists and publishers.
Some of these replies seem rather dismissive to the artists’ plight.
Artists have been around and existed in more repressive societies throughout time. The best art is usually produced from the greatest struggle. Artists will engage and create art in this new world. The cost of not providing a new surface for artists to explore is what kills art.
You can see where this is going, right? In the end, humanity and even artists will be fine overall, even if the world changes.
for the cost of showing ads?
We'd rather be tribal and hate on race, gender, sexuality, religion, location, etc than actually act our neuron counts.
The intention and cost of something like that is not at all comparable to what is being offered here.
No artists are losing income because of this and no industry is being upended. This is a new product that's available because of a technology advanced.
Why the focus the artist? Everytime you order in food online you take away a tip from a host, server, bartender and take away a job from a person who answers a phone. Why focus on artists when so many have been affected by technology.
https://www.poplocal.com.au/product/bum-man-colouring-book/
He's 'Bum Man'. A man (actually it's asexual) who is a bum. I mean c'mon.
It's about applying your outrage evenly. Why put artists over a servers? Why do you drive when not using horses means many blacksmiths positions disappear. Technology that is accepted by society changes society. Artists will continue to evolve and create messages about those changes. No need to worry about their plight. Worry about translators or other industries that can't easily provide the same value. Artists are the one group who will survive and thrive.
This is how art works and has always worked. Artist should be using the same AI tools that the general public use but create things that the general public cannot. That’s what artists have always done.
Running a restaurant is a trillion other things. Ordering the right amount of ingredients. Hiring, training, and keeping staff. Cleaning the bathrooms. Replacing stolen silverware.
You're not paying for the secret recipe. There isn't one. You're paying for the insane amount of work that goes into putting cooked food on a plate.
Images are much more about the specific process that went into creation. The intellectual part that can be taken is a much higher fraction of the product.
Any attempt to compare the A.I. stuff to some analogous scenario is deeply flawed if it does not include 1) that A.I. instances are not humans, but computers run by companies, and 2) the incredible scale at which it can operate.
The actual actions taking place are secondary at best, and the situation cannot be judged on that alone. It must be debated in the context of the actions being undertaken by machines, owned by companies, motivated by profit/market share/growth/whatever, with little communication or collaboration with the humans who created the works, and that they can now generate outputs based on those works at a scale, frequency, level of precision several orders of magnitude higher than a human can ever compete with. It cannot be compared to any sort of person-to-person scenario. The enormous scale this operates at, by actors that are not human, is the core of the situation.
I reached out to multiple artists, and got one image back (from a good friend). I gave up on commissioning actual artists, and traced the images myself on a tablet. I imagine someone with the right knowledge of where to find artists and the willingness to wait on their schedule could have done it faster, but I'd have used this service if it had been around.
Sure, not now. Not tomorrow. But less than 1000 years from now? Definitely, imo.
I'm a furry, I commission a decent bit of art and furry artists (unless they're super popular) tend to actually be much cheaper than normies.
Commissioning a comic is >$100 for a page, from a popular artist at least several hundred.
And that's also for personal use with no commercial rights whatsoever - it's actually an impasse because they technically still own the art, you technically own the character in the art, so it's in licensing purgatory, which is fine for conbadges, smut, icons and whatnot.
I used to work at an agency that shared a floor with an art studio, commercial rights for art, especially something as complex as a comic page can easily run into $1-10k or more.
Don't get me wrong, artists deserve the money they get, but as with everything that gets automated, there's a financial incentive to do so. Inb4 someone drops all the etsy links of sellers doing AI art as well or (as has been done for a loooong time) using a non-ml based filter to achieve the same thing.
There are definitely cheap-er options available from Brazil, China, Venezuela etc (same as fursuit commissions) but that's also another interesting topic in relation to ai; we already outsource heavily.
> Generate a version of this photo that can be used as a coloring sheet
> Make this a page in a colouring book. The drawing is in a simple Studio Ghibli portrait style. Bleed all the way to the edges. Background colour is #ffffff and lines are bold and #000000. There is no shading or crossthatching.
Pricing is quite high - 24 pages maximum for $23.99. There are 100-page coloring books on Amazon for $5.00, and the age group that really would be using this is not going to remember what was on the page a week from the day they did it.
Maybe it can work in the nice of "adult coloring books" - I've seen some social media content where people really go crazy on coloring books, and being able to get nice physical copy to work off could appeal there.
No worries, just wondering how that should work.
I pretty much just assumed they're all in the public domain. I can't find the image anymore so I've decided to remove it for now. I generated the other three myself.
Demo: https://v0-story-maker.vercel.app/
The chat: https://v0.dev/chat/ai-story-book-creator-zw7TrmkN2Eb
How much does the api cost to run? Do you have any safe guards in place in case bots try to build 1000 stories?
I’m just using Geminis rate limits, because its pretty ridiculously cheap. You can get pretty far on just their free tier last I checked (when I made this the image model was 100% free)
I wrote about it a little bit here: https://x.com/max_leiter/status/1906492622551884187
Any idea how much it costs to create a book?
I noticed it wasn’t passing the image back and forth so I asked it to, and it wrote that prompting
Sora: https://clevercoloringbook.com/samples/3_cartoon.png
I've had this idea years ago and searched extensively for a way to turn images into nice line art, but it turns out there needs to be a good bit of creativity (AI) to do so. Old school computer science techniques don't cut it.
I wonder if printing services (Lulu?) have a automatic API or if it requires some manual intervention? (And the shipping part?)
Everyone and their mother are trying to hop on the band wagon of AI and make a half assed service just because it may sell just due to the "ai" tag attached to it - this is different!
Chapeau bas! It's simple but brilliant. It's a great example of what a good idea is - with minimal effort he made an epic product focusing not an AI, but what AI can bring to the table and executing it flawlessly. Hats off!
* one full PDF (including cover) of an example book.
* don't use AI images as examples - it's not obvious if the outline version will look as good on real images.
I didn't add a PDF but I added some photos of the real end product to the bottom of the landing page now.