[HN Gopher] StableStudio, an open-source release of DreamStudio
___________________________________________________________________
StableStudio, an open-source release of DreamStudio
Author : jacooper
Score : 206 points
Date : 2023-05-17 14:21 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (stability.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (stability.ai)
| stevedekorte wrote:
| Can it be used via an API?
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| Did you miss the large API link in the header?
| xu_ituairo wrote:
| Unkind response, and the API link goes to info about
| Stability's API, not info about an API for interacting with
| the StableStudio app.
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| You don't use APIs to interact with apps. Apps use APIs to
| do actions.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| If you want to use stable diffusion t2i and i2i _today_ via an
| self-hosted api it 's very easy to do so with auto1111, just
| click the api link at the bottom of the gradio app and there's
| extensive documentation on the endpoints.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| I think it can only use other APIs itself. Looks like they want
| to make it work with a1111's api and they will ship a plugin
| that talks to stability's pay api.
| Eduard wrote:
| So StableStudio is just a plugin-extendable user interface for
| interacting with an image generation model (e.g. via queries
| against some opaque remote endpoint) , but does not provide the
| actual image generation model?
|
| So the actually interesting meat is not part of the offer?
| hafriedlander wrote:
| Don't discount the value (or difficulty) of a great user
| interface
|
| There are multiple servers that provide the backend "meat"
| already: gyre.ai (my personal project); Automatic1111 webui;
| InvokeAI; plus all the hosted APIs to name just a few.
|
| There are no UI interfaces I'd consider great. I think Flying
| Dog aistudio[1] is the best (although I'm biased), but still
| early days. The UI part of WebUI is ... functional(ish).
|
| DreamStudio / StableStudio is super basic in capability at the
| moment, but it's a space with tons of room for improvement.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcGlA38M52M
|
| (Edit: markdown doesn't work here)
| akiselev wrote:
| Getting to the meat of the release (from their github [1]):
|
| _> What 's the difference between StableStudio and DreamStudio?_
| Not much! There are a few tweaks we made to make the project more
| community-friendly: - We removed DreamStudio-specific
| branding. - All "over-the-wire" API calls have been
| replaced by a plugin system which allows you to easily swap out
| the back-end. - On release, we'll only be providing a
| plugin for the Stability API, but with a little bit of
| TypeScript, you can create your own. - We removed
| Stability-specific account features such as billing, API key
| management, etc. - These features are still available
| at DreamStudio's account page.
|
| Doesn't look like any of their models are getting open sourced
| alongside the app but they're making it possible to swap out the
| image generation backend using plugins
|
| [1] https://github.com/Stability-AI/StableStudio
| darknavi wrote:
| This is still really nifty.
|
| > All "over-the-wire" API calls have been replaced by a plugin
| system which allows you to easily swap out the back-end.
| connerruhl wrote:
| The models will be open-sourced too!
|
| They aren't quite ready yet...
|
| https://twitter.com/EMostaque/status/1641795867740086272
| make3 wrote:
| very cool
| RobotToaster wrote:
| They claim their other models are "open source" too, but
| their licence violates several points of the open source
| definition.
| orra wrote:
| The claim that Stable Diffusion XL will be open sourced, has
| to be taken with a pinch of salt.
|
| Stability AI already claim Stable Diffusion (non-XL) is an
| "Open Source Model"[1]. It's not. The code is open source but
| the model is proprietary.
|
| [1] https://stability.ai/
| hafriedlander wrote:
| Model weights can't really be described as source code
| though. The equivalence isn't exact, but I'd describe the
| weights more as the compiled binary, with the training data
| & schedule being the source (which is sort of under an open
| source license, with the complication of LAION's "it's just
| links"). The fact it costs $1 million to "compile" isn't
| relevant.
|
| This isn't to defend Stability particularly though -
| they've been getting increasing slow and restrained in
| their model releases. Charitably because they're attracting
| a lot of heat from political and anti-AI aligned groups.
| Uncharitably because they've taken a lot of funding now.
|
| (Edit: typo)
| orra wrote:
| > Model weights can't really be described as source code
| though. The equivalence isn't exact, but I'd describe the
| weights more as the compiled binary, with the training
| data & schedule being the source
|
| I think this is a really interesting discussion! I see
| where you're coming from, but I'm minded to disagree in
| part.
|
| For one, I think it's possible to release model weights
| under a liberal licence, yet train on proprietary data.
| (ChatGPT is trained on oodles of proprietary data, but
| that doesn't limit what OpenAI do with the model).
| Normally, obviously, the binary is a derivative work of
| the source.
|
| Also, the GPL defines source code as 'the preferred form
| for modification'. I don't disagree that model weights
| are a black box. But we've seen loads of fine tuning of
| LLaMA, so we don't always need to train models from
| scratch.
|
| Ideally, of course, having both unencumbered training
| data and model weights would be perfect. But in the
| interim, given I don't have that million dollars, I'll
| settle for the latter.
| hafriedlander wrote:
| Yeah, neither view is a perfect fit. Another example is
| vision transformer backbones, where a common generic base
| weight is used to fine-tune all sorts of different
| processes (segmentation, image to text, etc). The
| terminology (and licenses) haven't really kept up.
|
| A properly unencumbered model would be my preference too.
| The community generally seems a bit laissez-faire with
| license compliance though, so the restrictions currently
| don't generate much push back. (Plus it's not totally
| clear that you can copyright model weights at all, given
| they're the output of an automatic process).
| simonw wrote:
| > The code is open source but the model is proprietary.
|
| Are you saying that because the Open RAIL M license doesn't
| conform to the OSI definition of "open source"?
|
| I agree that it's not "open source", but I don't think that
| means it's "proprietary".
| orra wrote:
| Yes, the OpenRAIL licences are _deliberately_ not open
| source. Being open source or not is binary, and
| proprietary is the antithesis of open source.
|
| There are of course additional ways to describe specific
| proprietary things, like distributable in this case.
| Distributable but non-free, because the software license
| is morally judgemental, and limits 'fields of endeavour'.
| simonw wrote:
| I'm with you on "not open source", but I don't think
| "proprietary" works as the opposite of "open source"
| here.
|
| The dictionary definition of "proprietary" tends towards
| "one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to
| something" - that doesn't quite fit here, because models
| licensed under OpenRAIL aren't exclusively restricted to
| their owners.
|
| They have terms of how they can used that are more
| restrictive than open source licenses, but they don't
| enforce "exclusive" usage by their owners.
| jacooper wrote:
| Source available is the fitting term here.
| lxe wrote:
| No local inference support as of yet at least.
| Here are a few things we'd be excited to support...
| Local inference through WebGPU Local inference
| through stable-diffusion-webui Desktop installation
| ControlNet tools Tell us what you want to see!
| SquareWheel wrote:
| Doesn't that just mean that local inference runs on the CPU?
| hafriedlander wrote:
| Since I re-implement the Stability APIs with gyre.ai, it should
| "just work" for a local inference option.
|
| I haven't tested though, and the API spec has lots of under-
| specified bits, so could be some stuff I need to tidy up.
|
| (Alternatively, despite the post content, in the github repo
| there is already a webui plugin, no idea of current state).
| jonplackett wrote:
| I'd rather them focus on getting their hosted solution/api on par
| with Automatic. It needs control net, it needs seamless images.
| And all the other goodies that are now pretty standard.
|
| I like a hosted solution. Can we just make it much better please?
| If I am paying you to host a service I don't want to also have to
| go an give my labour to create the software. That's why I wanted
| a hosted service in the first place.
| naillo wrote:
| People keep hyping this automatic UI but having tried it it's
| honestly so awful. Can't believe people are saying it's better
| than dreamstudio
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| The UI is awful, the functionality is not.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| For serious generation control, nothing else comes remotely
| close. It is the most impressive github project I have every
| installed tbh. The flexibility of the system is unmatched in
| the image gen space. It feels like I am back in the 90s.
| phonescreen_man wrote:
| Will this become more popular than automatic1111 webUI ?
| yankoff wrote:
| I wouldn't bet on it. Automatic1111 already has a strong
| community and growing ecosystem. Stability.ai would have to try
| really hard and offer something significant to win people over.
| [deleted]
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Looks like they are trying to make it worth with a1111.
| Here are a few things we'd be excited to support...
| Local inference through WebGPU Local inference through
| stable-diffusion-webui Desktop installation
| ControlNet tools
| asynchronous wrote:
| Very curious to this as well, I'd imagine not unless something
| dramatic happens as Automatic is the gathering storm of public
| support and interest.
| dathos wrote:
| Kudos to Stability for focussing on open source when "Open"ai is
| trying to dig a moat around their castle.
| ShadowBanThis01 wrote:
| If it's legit. Based on some of the earlier comments, it seems
| like this claim might be bullshit.
| bitL wrote:
| How is Stability AI going to make money? What they provide is
| super cool and VCs are into it but at some point they need to
| start giving them returns. Is the plan to get acquired?
| rm999 wrote:
| Their business plan is to build custom models for
| clients/companies who want to own models built on their own
| data. No comment on the viability of such a business model.
|
| https://twitter.com/EMostaque/status/1649152422634221593
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| They're a B2B finetuning and fully managed model solution. Open
| Source is free marketing for them.
| make3 wrote:
| I wonder if they will merge with Huggingface
| choxi wrote:
| That's some expensive free marketing
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| >That's some expensive free marketing
|
| No, it's free.
|
| They need to make the models already in order to sell them
| as managed models.
|
| Giving them away costs nothing once they're made.
| [deleted]
| naillo wrote:
| Stable diffusion cost only 1 million, that's like 5
| marketing people for SF salaries. Not sure they'd achieve
| better results than SD got them.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Citation needed? That seems incredibly low. Is it
| considering the cost of paying researchers?
| [deleted]
| skybrian wrote:
| You can buy credits to generate images using DreamStudio. In
| theory, this seems more convenient than running software
| locally. But last I checked, their image quality wasn't all
| that interesting compared to MidJourney, so I stopped using it.
|
| The Discord-based UI for MidJourney is clunky and unreliable,
| and waiting for images to generate is annoying. Image quality
| has improved quite a bit, but it's no better at following
| instructions. So it seems like there's an opening for a
| competitor, but the competition would need to actually be
| better.
| nomagicbullet wrote:
| Some ideas:
|
| AI platform - They could charge a subscription fee for access
| to premium features on its open-source StableStudio platform.
|
| Consulting services - They could charge businesses for its AI
| and machine learning consulting services on a per-project basis
| or on a retainer basis.
|
| Acquisition - A larger company with more resources could
| acquire Stability AI to scale its operations and reach a wider
| audience.
| 10xDev wrote:
| When even users are recommending a subscription service,
| that's when you know we have become brainwashed into thinking
| it's a healthy or required practice.
| seydor wrote:
| they don't sell an API? i m sure they could bring a lot of
| customers to a computing provider
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-17 23:01 UTC)