- 20$/m subscription needed if project has less than $1m annual revenue or <1m users
- Undisclosed "Enterprise" subscription needed for projects larger than above
To me the $240/y sounds pretty awesome for a smaller commercial project, and i like they've set the threshold pretty high up.
But still don't like "undisclosed" black box enterprise pricing though when they're running their own API, because it basically means they can tax you to death if you build a service that competes with their API right - so in effect only viable to create small companies with this tech?
> so in effect only viable to create small companies with this tech
I assume stability wants to be in the role of building AI models not applications, so if you provide a clear and nontrivial value add beyond their API you should be fine. If you build a tool that allows architects to make their building renderings more lifelike by adding realistic crowds, vegetation, storefronts etc right from the comfort of their existing tooling it's in Stability's interest that you are successful. If you only resell their API but in green they might not be as invested in your success.
> But still don't like "undisclosed" black box enterprise pricing though when they're running their own API, because it basically means they can tax you to death if you build a service that competes with their API right - so in effect only viable to create small companies with this tech?
"undisclosed" doesn't imply changing the price after it was negotiated with you. It just mean they will negotiate the contracts for large projects, without disclosing the terms to the public ... in my view.
Seems ripe for a "project sharding" platform that splits your project into multiple identical backend projects that each have <1M annual revenue and <1M of your users.
Would save you from the unnecessary calls and coffee chats, you just pay N * subscription fee and get on with your life.
You could probably also use part of the revenue to buy treasury bonds and automagically pay the subscription fees, and it would be a closed intervention-free system.
I'm still goofing around with stable diffusion 1.5 based models. It has such a vibrant open source scene and it's free for commercial usage forever so.. I'm not really interested in V3. I guess corporations might be or whatever?
Maybe the early access beta was limiting the available resources, or they used bad settings, bud juding by that thread it looks like the model got worse during training or the earlier examples were quite cherry-picked.
To be fair, this has been my initial impression with basically all image generation models. The current generation is finally at the point where throwing untuned prompts at untuned models gives good results, but those never match the results of finely tuned (positive and negative) prompts with parameters adjusted from experience; ideally with model fine-tunes added.
If you want the best results there is still skill and work involved. Consequently a showcase by people experienced with the model far surpasses what you get when you shout prompts over the internet for somebody else to try
"In keeping with our commitment to open generative AI, we aim to make the model weights available for self-hosting with a Stability AI Membership in the near future."
Does this mean that SD3 will not be available from Huggingface etc.?
I've noticed some models on Hugging Face require an extra layer of terms acceptance, like a EULA. Maybe it'll be like that? Otherwise I'm guessing they want one to make a dedicated Stability AI account, accept some terms, and then enable the download.
I stumbled upon a thread debating whether SD3 will fully replace SD 1.5 and SDXL, or if it will still have trade-offs for different uses.
Context: Stability is cutting out thousands of artists for "safety" reason, which means billions of images won't make the cut. I wondered how much the model will be nerfed in terms of nudity, artist names, and the like, and whether these issues can be resolved with some fine-tuning.
Since I still don't have access to SD3, I'm compiling a list of all the Stable Diffusion 3 generations out there. I managed to scrape this info from Twitter using their premium API (which cost me a Benjamin!). I manually curated the images to ensure they are indeed SD3 generations and made it searchable.
In case someone finds it useful, it's available here https://sd3.art/
You're essentially mixing units. "2 out of 20" does not match with "first try". I would have liked to see you run all of them for 20 and added comments in addition like "this got it right on the first try", which could also have been luck. I mean if it got 1 out of 20 but happened to get it right the first try, is that better or worse than 2 out of 20?
> By October 2023, Stability would have less than $4 million left in the bank [...] Stability was "underpaying AWS bills for July (by $1M)" and "not planning to pay AWS at the end of October for August usage ($7M)." Then there were the September and October bills, plus $1 million owed to Google Cloud and $600,000 to GPU cloud data center CoreWeave [...] Stability was on track to lose more money per month than it made in an entire year.
> In keeping with our commitment to open generative AI, we aim to make the model weights available for self-hosting with a Stability AI Membership in the near future.
This is new, right? All previous releases as far as I can tell were just released on HuggingFace. Does this statement just imply something about licensing for commercial usage, or are they pretending that by gating the download behind a paywall that will somehow require people to buy memberships to get the weights?
MyFirstSass|1 year ago
- Free to use for non commercial projects
- 20$/m subscription needed if project has less than $1m annual revenue or <1m users
- Undisclosed "Enterprise" subscription needed for projects larger than above
To me the $240/y sounds pretty awesome for a smaller commercial project, and i like they've set the threshold pretty high up.
But still don't like "undisclosed" black box enterprise pricing though when they're running their own API, because it basically means they can tax you to death if you build a service that competes with their API right - so in effect only viable to create small companies with this tech?
wongarsu|1 year ago
I assume stability wants to be in the role of building AI models not applications, so if you provide a clear and nontrivial value add beyond their API you should be fine. If you build a tool that allows architects to make their building renderings more lifelike by adding realistic crowds, vegetation, storefronts etc right from the comfort of their existing tooling it's in Stability's interest that you are successful. If you only resell their API but in green they might not be as invested in your success.
CharlesW|1 year ago
I'm curious why that'd be a concern, since building a service that effectively just resells an API isn't a viable business model.
Lacerda69|1 year ago
ranit|1 year ago
"undisclosed" doesn't imply changing the price after it was negotiated with you. It just mean they will negotiate the contracts for large projects, without disclosing the terms to the public ... in my view.
theolivenbaum|1 year ago
dheera|1 year ago
Would save you from the unnecessary calls and coffee chats, you just pay N * subscription fee and get on with your life.
You could probably also use part of the revenue to buy treasury bonds and automagically pay the subscription fees, and it would be a closed intervention-free system.
BaculumMeumEst|1 year ago
etaioinshrdlu|1 year ago
the_duke|1 year ago
Maybe the early access beta was limiting the available resources, or they used bad settings, bud juding by that thread it looks like the model got worse during training or the earlier examples were quite cherry-picked.
wongarsu|1 year ago
If you want the best results there is still skill and work involved. Consequently a showcase by people experienced with the model far surpasses what you get when you shout prompts over the internet for somebody else to try
GaggiX|1 year ago
airstrike|1 year ago
butterchaos|1 year ago
I am sure someone will tell me there is a reason why I am wrong and these aren't that bad.
Midjourney has never needed an explanation though with words. The proof is in the output. Everything else is nonsense.
panki27|1 year ago
Does this mean that SD3 will not be available from Huggingface etc.?
astrange|1 year ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1c6awnl/co...
accrual|1 year ago
glass-z13|1 year ago
perstablintome|1 year ago
Context: Stability is cutting out thousands of artists for "safety" reason, which means billions of images won't make the cut. I wondered how much the model will be nerfed in terms of nudity, artist names, and the like, and whether these issues can be resolved with some fine-tuning.
Since I still don't have access to SD3, I'm compiling a list of all the Stable Diffusion 3 generations out there. I managed to scrape this info from Twitter using their premium API (which cost me a Benjamin!). I manually curated the images to ensure they are indeed SD3 generations and made it searchable.
In case someone finds it useful, it's available here https://sd3.art/
spywaregorilla|1 year ago
zone411|1 year ago
1. "A stained glass picture of a woman in a library with a raven on her shoulder with a key in its mouth"
2 out of 20 tries
2. "An oil painting of a man in a factory looking at a cat wearing a top hat"
First try
3. "A digital art picture of a child riding a llama with a bell on its tail through a desert"
0 out of 20 tries
4. "A 3D render of an astronaut in space holding a fox wearing lipstick"
2 out of 20 tries
5. "Pixel art of a farmer in a cathedral holding a red basketball"
First try
So about even with these models and much better than previous versions of SD. Better than Midjourney v6.
Kerbonut|1 year ago
rsynnott|1 year ago
... Who's supposed to be wearing the lipstick, the fox or the astronaut?
poniko|1 year ago
jsheard|1 year ago
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrickcai/2024/03/29/how-stabi...
> By October 2023, Stability would have less than $4 million left in the bank [...] Stability was "underpaying AWS bills for July (by $1M)" and "not planning to pay AWS at the end of October for August usage ($7M)." Then there were the September and October bills, plus $1 million owed to Google Cloud and $600,000 to GPU cloud data center CoreWeave [...] Stability was on track to lose more money per month than it made in an entire year.
apetresc|1 year ago
This is new, right? All previous releases as far as I can tell were just released on HuggingFace. Does this statement just imply something about licensing for commercial usage, or are they pretending that by gating the download behind a paywall that will somehow require people to buy memberships to get the weights?
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
__loam|1 year ago
zone411|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]