[HN Gopher] Running Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 in 298MB of RAM
___________________________________________________________________
Running Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 in 298MB of RAM
Author : Robin89
Score : 365 points
Date : 2023-10-03 14:43 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| rcarmo wrote:
| I wonder if this could be accelerated with the Pi's onboard GPU
| somehow.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Is not not already using it? I thought ONNX had a GPU runtime
| the Pi could use.
| maxlin wrote:
| > This is another image generated by my RPI Zero 2 in about 11
| hours
|
| So pointless. I love it
| [deleted]
| naillo wrote:
| Calculator next
| scrumlord wrote:
| [dead]
| worldmerge wrote:
| This is so cool!!! Nice job on it!
| symisc_devel wrote:
| [flagged]
| aftbit wrote:
| What does it mean to be "partially uncensored"?
| [deleted]
| omneity wrote:
| I see you're opting for AGPL on a codebase that is designed to
| be embedded as a library. Genuine question, what kind of user
| did you have in mind when you decided on this license?
| diimdeep wrote:
| Maybe next time shamelessly mention that you sell models for
| $29 and there is no instructions to convert from vanilla SD.
| refulgentis wrote:
| I can't believe this is still the top comment. I wish I
| didn't edit down my reply, shoulda just said "this is stupid,
| you're comparing your desktop to a raspberry pi"
|
| ONNX streaming is way cooler and more impressive than another
| commercial wrapper around SD. Doesn't deserve this.
| Filligree wrote:
| Okay... what's the downside?
| refulgentis wrote:
| In terms of, what's the tradeoff for the time decrease?
|
| Apples to oranges, they're comparing 11 hours on a Raspberry
| Pi Zero to:
|
| - 10 seconds on Intel i7-13700
|
| - 3 seconds on Intel i9-9990XE
|
| - 5 seconds on Ryzen 9-5900X
|
| Additionally, the 2048 is accomplished by using RealESRGAN to
| 2x, which isn't close to what a native 2048 diffuser's
| quality would be.
|
| It does look interesting and is an achievement, in terms of,
| it's hard to write this stuff from scratch, much less in pure
| C++ without relying on GPU.
| Filligree wrote:
| Ah. I use RealESRGAN (or one of its descendants, rather) as
| a first pass upscaler before high-resolution diffusion. If
| you skip the diffusion step, of course it'll be faster.
| leonidasv wrote:
| Unrelated, but now I'm curious about how much would it take
| on RPis 4 and 5.
| biomcgary wrote:
| Also $29 to get pre-trained model assets to run code.
| smusamashah wrote:
| Why does this one needs pretrained models? Can't we use any
| of the thousands of already available ones?
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| These are mostly Stable Diffusion architecture models,
| but its not the only game in town.
| TeddyDD wrote:
| Hard to tell since there is zero documentation in regard
| to models.
| habibur wrote:
| Before you waste your time, this is a commercial product and
| you need to pay $30 to buy their model to run it.
| smusamashah wrote:
| Are those 2048 x 2048 images still sensible? SD 1.5 is best
| used at 512x512 and may produce sensible images upto 768. It
| generates monstrosities above that. Similarly SD XL is good
| upto 1024.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| These are limitations of a single text-to-image gen, which is
| the least interesting way to use those models. When guided by
| a previous low-res generation, it won't fall apart at
| arbitrary resolutions, that's how all diffusion upscalers
| work. Just don't expect being able to fit every detail in one
| pass, use multiple ones (that's how detailers work).
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Are those 2048 x 2048 images still sensible? SD 1.5 is best
| used at 512x512 and may produce sensible images upto 768. It
| generates monstrosities above that. Similarly SD XL is good
| upto 1024.
|
| You can do significantly higher resolutions with various
| tricks like tiled diffusion, which is also a memory
| efficiency hack. (The stable-diffusion-webui tiled diffusion
| extension uses 2560x1280 direct [no upscale step] generation
| with an SD 1.5-based model as one of its examples.)
| viraptor wrote:
| > Similarly SD XL is good upto 1024.
|
| I don't think that's right. SD xl is good starting from 1024.
| Anything lower generates a useless mess.
| dang wrote:
| It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for
| promotion. This is against HN's rules - see
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:
|
| "Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post
| your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the
| site should be for curiosity."
| esskay wrote:
| A bit of advice...stop. Blatent self promotion of commercial
| products is a hard no here. We dont want it, and its against
| the rules. Delete this, and the other posts before they get
| deleted for you along with account closure.
| orangepurple wrote:
| I can't wait for Stable Diffusion for Windows 3.1
| pizzaknife wrote:
| ./lifts eyebrows suggestively
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| samr71 wrote:
| So this should be it for trying to regulate stable diffusion type
| tech, right? If these models and their inference infra can be
| shrunk down to be runnable on a PS2, it doesn't seem like it's
| possible to stop this tech without a totalitarian surveillance
| state (and barely even then!).
| jayd16 wrote:
| Copyright infringement is quite cheap as well. Ease and
| illegality are tangential. You'd still stop commercial acts
| even if it's impossible to fully stop something.
|
| That said, I don't think blanket regulation is all that likely
| anyhow.
| skyyler wrote:
| The PS2 only had 32 MB of ram. Even the PS3 only had 256 MB.
|
| I know it was a bit of a funny hyperbolic example, but you'd
| need to shrink this down way further to run it on a PS2.
| phh wrote:
| So this should be it for trying to regulate theft, right? If
| you can open a window without any tool other than your own
| body. It doesn't seem like it's possible to stop thefts without
| a totalitarian surveillance state (and barely event then!).
|
| Or same can be said about media "piracy". Or ransomwares.
|
| States have forever regulated things that are not possible to
| enforce purely technically.
| tavavex wrote:
| But theft is quite a different thing, is it not? It's a
| physical act that someone can be caught engaging in - be it
| by another person, a guard or a security camera. Sure, the
| "barrier for entry" to commit it is low, but retailers et al.
| are doing as much as they can to raise it.
|
| Piracy most often isn't treated as a criminal matter, but a
| civil one - few countries punish piracy severely, but
| companies are allowed to sue the pirate.
|
| I agree with OP in principle - regulating generative AI use
| would be way harder than piracy or whatever, especially since
| all of it can be done purely locally and millions of people
| already have the software downloaded. And that's not getting
| into the reasoning behind a ban - piracy and similar "digital
| crimes" are banned because they directly harm someone, while
| someone launching Stable Diffusion on their PC doesn't do
| much of anything.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _few countries punish piracy severely, but companies are
| allowed to sue the pirate._
|
| UNCLOS, Part VII, Section 1, Article 100 https://www.un.org
| /depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc...
|
| >> _Duty to cooperate in the repression of piracy_
|
| >> _All States shall cooperate to the fullest possible
| extent in the repression of piracy on the high seas or in
| any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State._
|
| We could have just added "private computer" to the
| definition of piracy, and it largely would have applied.
|
| >> _Definition of piracy_
|
| >> _Piracy consists of any of the following acts:_
|
| >> _(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any
| act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew
| or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft,
| and directed_ [...] _on the high seas, against another ship
| or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such
| ship or aircraft;_
| tavavex wrote:
| ..What? Digital piracy has absolutely no logical or legal
| connections to naval piracy, except for sharing the same
| name.
|
| No sane person could ever implement anything like this.
| This is like saying that we could "just" add the word
| "digital" to the laws prohibiting murder to make playing
| GTA illegal.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| An extra-territorial crime
|
| Mostly committed by private citizens in pursuit of profit
|
| That all nations of the world have an interest in
| suppressing to encourage free trade that economically
| benefits them
|
| But which some countries at various times have a
| geopolitical interest in supporting
|
| ... you're right, they have no logical or legal
| connections at all.
| tavavex wrote:
| You could tie essentially any two crimes by assigning
| more broad descriptors to them that'd boil down to "this
| is what countries want to discourage". Not to mention,
| half of this is just wrong - digital piracy most often
| isn't extraterritorial (it very much falls under the
| jurisdiction of where the piracy took place), and most
| individuals pirate for personal needs, not profit.
|
| The point stands - no jurisdiction that I know of treats
| digital piracy similarly to naval piracy, and there is no
| strong argument in favor of doing so.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _digital piracy most often isn 't extraterritorial (it
| very much falls under the jurisdiction of where the
| piracy took place)_
|
| The canonical eBay/PayPal fraud from eastern Europe
| example?
|
| > _most individuals pirate for personal needs, not
| profit._
|
| But _most piracy_ is done by individuals in pursuit of
| profit, not for personal need.
| ShrigmaMale wrote:
| no, this is a lousy analogy because there is a clear harm to
| others in the case of theft. we've tried regulating other
| difficult to regulate things where the harm is unclear or
| indirect (drugs being a good example) to no avail.
|
| your piracy example is better. consider that it's the rise of
| more convenient options (netflix and spotify) not some
| effective policy that curtailed the prevalence of piracy.
| JimDabell wrote:
| > consider that it's the rise of more convenient options
| (netflix and spotify) not some effective policy that
| curtailed the prevalence of piracy.
|
| The turning point was earlier than Netflix or Spotify - it
| was the iTunes Store. It was such a dramatic shift, people
| labelled Steve Jobs as "the man who persuaded the world to
| pay for content".
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2011/aug/28/
| s...
| leothecool wrote:
| Theft has a clearance rate of only 15%. Sounds like we
| already stopped trying to regulate most theft, in practice.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| "Trying to regulate" and "succeeding in enforcing
| regulations" aren't the same thing.
|
| In fact, a low clearance rate can be evidence of trying to
| regulate far beyond one's capacity to consistently enforce;
| if you weren't trying to regulate very hard, it would be
| much easier to have a high clearance rate for violations of
| what regulations you do have.
| cortesoft wrote:
| What sort of regulations on the tech are you talking about? It
| really depends on what you are trying to do whether you can or
| not.
| Drakim wrote:
| The war on general computing has been ongoing but not made
| enough inroads to stop people from owning general computing
| devices (yet)
| IKantRead wrote:
| I try to bring up as often as possible in conversation that
| nearly all the progress we're seeing in terms of usability
| and performance is precisely because of the open source
| support for these models.
|
| Especially because these tools are so popular outside of the
| developer community, I think it's worth really beating into
| peoples minds that without open source AI would be in a much
| worse place overall.
| bloaf wrote:
| Indeed, the death knell could be tolling not for regulation
| of ai but for general purposes computers. In AI we have four
| horsemen: copyright infringement, illegal pornography, fake
| news generation, and democratization of capabilities that
| large companies would rather monetize.
| fragmede wrote:
| Given the proliferation of illegal downloads (I can get a
| bad cam rip of the Barbie movie on release weekend just
| fine, plus a VPN would protect me from DCMA takedowns), and
| illegal pornography (just ask a torrent tracker for the
| fappening), and the proliferation of fake news (esp on eg,
| Facebook) despite a lack of it needing to be ML model
| generated, and companies and OSS in the space doing the
| democratizing and releasing complete model weights, and not
| just lone individuals trying to do the work in isolation,
| (aka stability.ai), are they really four horsemen, or four
| kids on miniature ponys?
| pmarreck wrote:
| This is more than a little melodramatic.
|
| https://frame.work/ and the https://mntre.com/ MNT Reform:
| Exist
| codetrotter wrote:
| If my country decides to ban the ownership of general
| purpose computers for individual persons, they would order
| the customs service to stop import of any computer hardware
| that enabled general purpose computing. Now I would not be
| able to have any computer shipped to me from outside my
| country, so I could no longer buy from either of those
| vendors you linked.
|
| Furthermore, it also would mean that I would not be able to
| bring any personal computers with me when I travel to other
| countries. I like to travel, and I like to bring my
| computers when I do.
|
| Next, it would also be dangerous to try to buy computers
| locally within the borders of the country. The seller might
| be an informant of the police, or even a LEO doing a sting
| operation.
|
| And then next you have to worry about the computers you
| already have. If you decide to keep the computers that you
| had since before, after it is made illegal to own them, you
| will have problems even if you keep them hidden and only
| use them at home. Other people know about your computers.
| Some of those people will definitely tip off the
| authorities about the fact that you are known to have
| computers.
|
| Let's hope it never goes as far like this :(
| pmarreck wrote:
| Banning the import of personal computers would be
| absolutely disastrous for any possible economy anywhere.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| This is a slippery slope to the extreme.
|
| What country outside of North Korea has banned the
| ownership of general purpose computers, or even
| considered/tried to?
| pphysch wrote:
| That is virtually impossible because Turing-complete systems
| are everywhere
| yowlingcat wrote:
| I wonder if there's an analogy to be made here to DRM. In
| theory, yes, DRM shouldn't be possible, but in practice,
| manufacturers have been able to hobble hardware
| acceleration behind trusted computing model. Often, they do
| a poor job and it gets cracked (as with HDCP [1], and UWP
| [2]).
|
| The question in my head is whether the failures in their
| approaches are due to a flaw in the implementation (in
| which case it's practically possible to do what they're
| trying to do although they haven't figured out a way to do
| it), or whether it's fundamentally impossible. With DRM and
| content, there's always the analog hole, and if you have
| physical control over the device, there's always a way to
| crack the software and the hardware if need be. My
| questions are whether:
|
| a) this is a workable analogy (I think it's imperfect
| because Gen AI and DRM are kinda different beasts)
|
| b) even if it was, is there real way to limit Gen AI at a
| hardware level (I think that's also hard because as long as
| you can do hardware accelerated matmul it's basically
| opening up the equivalent of the analog hole towards semi-
| turing completeness which is also hardware accelerated)
|
| I imagine someone has thought through this more deeply than
| me and would be curious what they think.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
| bandwidth_Digital_Content...
|
| [2] https://techaeris.com/2018/02/18/microsoft-uwp-
| protection-cr...
| Drakim wrote:
| Just like how making weed illegal is virtually impossible
| because anybody can grow marijuana in their backyard.
|
| How many regular people would risk owning turning-complete
| devices that can run _unauthorized software_ if it would
| net you jail time if caught? Lots of countries are already
| itching towards banning VPN, corpo needs be damned.
|
| Especially now that the iPhone has shown having a device
| that can only run approved legal software covers a lot of
| people's everyday needs.
| pphysch wrote:
| I'm more referring to the fact that stuff like PowerPoint
| and Minecraft and who knows what are Turing-complete,
| albeit with awful performance.
|
| Theoretically, you can have a totally owned device
| managed by Big Brother, yet generate AI smut with a
| general purpose CPU built in PowerPoint.
|
| How do you possibly regulate that?
| FloatArtifact wrote:
| Can you explain that context a little bit of Turing
| complete?
| dartos wrote:
| You can't regulate the ownership of computing devices.
|
| It's too generic. There are too many of them.
| lodovic wrote:
| They could ban and phase out systems with unsecure
| bootloaders. That would go a long way. Many vendors have
| already locked down their boot process.
| bmacho wrote:
| Not a surveillance state, but a stop on producing new, high
| performant chips should be enough.
| natdempk wrote:
| I thought most of the regulatory efforts were focused on
| training runs getting bigger and bigger rather than generation
| with existing models. Is there regulation you're aware of
| around use of models?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > If these models and their inference infra can be shrunk down
| to be runnable on a PS2, it doesn't seem like it's possible to
| stop this tech without a totalitarian surveillance state (and
| barely even then!).
|
| The original requirement for these is 16GB of RAM, which can be
| had for less than $20. They run much faster on a GPU, which can
| be had for less than $200. Millions of ordinary people already
| have both of these things.
| julienchastang wrote:
| I've been using Stable Diffusion on a MBP via invoke.ai. Are
| there recommendations for better parameterization of SD? I can
| never match the quality of the images I find on the internet even
| when using the same prompt and (seemingly) the same knobs (e.g.,
| same Model like Euler A, etc). [edited for clarification]
| sbierwagen wrote:
| Do they specify it's straight from the generator? The process
| videos I've seen start with "a girl standing in a green field"
| and then an hour plus of inpainting to fix hands, pose, etc.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| This is the best I've tried so far, but no mac support I don't
| think. Its a feature packed fork of Fooocus, which was
| developed by the orginal ControlNet dev. The quality you can
| get from small prompts is mind boggling:
|
| https://github.com/MoonRide303/Fooocus-MRE
|
| For base SD 1.5, I use Volta, because its fast:
| https://github.com/VoltaML/voltaML-fast-stable-diffusion/com...
|
| Really good SD 1.5 image quality comes from gratuitous use of
| finetunes, LORAs, controlnet and other augmentations. So you
| can, say, trace a base image for structure, specify prompting
| in certain areas of the image and so on. InvokeAI is actually
| quite feature packed, and has lots of these augmentations
| hidden in the nodes UI, but Volta and other UIs also expose
| them more directly.
| doublebind wrote:
| I have the same experience with Invoke.ai or MochiDiffusion in
| the MBP M1. I can only match the quality of other images with
| Automatic1111 (https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-
| diffusion-webui).
|
| You'll need more time and memory compared to Invoke or an
| Nvidia graphics card, but it's not that bad: 1-2 s/it for an
| image in standard 512x768px quality, 14-20 s/it for an image in
| high 1024x1536px quality (Hires Fix).
| IKantRead wrote:
| Are you using custom weights? I'm assuming you are but there is
| a _major_ difference between using the default RunwayML 1.5
| weights and using a model finetuned for a specific purpose.
|
| Generally the trade off is that any of the impressive finetuned
| models are far less generalizable then the default weights, but
| in practice this is not a big deal and the results can be a
| substantial improvement.
| madduci wrote:
| Amazing feat, but of course takes forever to generate an image
| (in the Readme states 11 hours)
| hinkley wrote:
| On a raspberry Pi. Zero 2.
| esskay wrote:
| It'd be interesting to see what the cost and power equivilence
| would be compared to a higher end method. I.e the time, cost
| (including all hardware required) and power taken to generate
| 100 images using 100 individual Pi Zero 2's (doesnt even need
| to be a W) vs something like an average mid-tier PC.
|
| I'd assume the pc would still likely win.
|
| Something like a Pi 4 or 5 may be a better benchmark than the
| Zero 2 as I get the impression its been used more for the
| challenge than practicality.
| vinkelhake wrote:
| 11 hours remind me of doing raytracing on my Amiga 500 back in
| the day. It was definitely an overnight job for the "final"
| render.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Ha. Same on my 286. Set up povray, go to bed, see image before
| school in the morning.
| [deleted]
| hinkley wrote:
| Doing that low quality render first because you'd rather waste
| an hour being right than all night being wrong.
|
| That was about when I decided I needed other hobbies. Right
| before that happened some brilliant soul put out a tool that
| would render your scene in OpenGL so you could look at it
| first. I don't think that would run on your Amiga but it
| (barely) ran on my machine.
| somat wrote:
| Heh sometimes I am still doing that. modern bidirectional
| raytracers can do some interesting tricks. and I wanted to see
| caustics(the bright lines in pools). but caustics despite being
| bright are actually statistically rare. to get good caustics
| you have to unbound the render engine and just let it cook
| overnight.
|
| And the end result, a single image of a mediocre scene by a
| poor artist with amazing caustics. I won't be quitting my day
| job.
| _joel wrote:
| Same, (albeit a little later) with dodgy copy of 3DSMAX on a
| 386.
| Archelaos wrote:
| It reminds me of doing Mandelbrot fractals on my C64. Debugging
| my code was really hard.
| scrpl wrote:
| This is insane! 11 hours or not, I didn't expect SD could ever
| run on hardware like Pi Zero.
| omneity wrote:
| Fascinating. The money quote:
|
| "OnnxStream can consume even 55x less memory than OnnxRuntime
| while being only 0.5-2x slower"
|
| The trade-off between (V)RAM use and inference time sounds like
| it could be advantageous in some scenarios, and not just when RAM
| is constrained like in the RPi case.
|
| I actually wonder if this weight unloading approach can be used
| to handle larger batch sizes in the same amount of RAM, in effect
| increasing throughput massively at the cost of latency.
| monocasa wrote:
| From my (albeit naive) reading, it doesn't appear that that
| they've reduced the amount of memory bandwidth required, simply
| the size of the working set required.
|
| Since inference is generally memory bandwidth bound once you
| reach the level of 'does this model even fit in the given
| system', I'd imagine that this technique wouldn't help much for
| greater throughpit via larger batch sizes. Just one instance is
| probably already saturating the memory controller.
|
| Maybe it'd help on the training side though?
| omneity wrote:
| That's true. But assuming the required memory bandwidth is
| not already maxed out by this, there might still be a narrow
| but workable "Goldilocks zone" for this technique to be
| useful.
| SigmundurM wrote:
| "0.5-2x slower" must be a typo on their part right? If
| something is 0.5x slower, then it is 2x faster.
|
| I assume they meant to say "1.5-2x slower".
| dahart wrote:
| Maybe they meant 50%-200% slower, in which case the x-factor
| range would really be 1.5x to 3x?
| hinkley wrote:
| 200% slower is 3x as long, yes.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I love making fun of people that don't understand
| percentages... wait, wat?
| froggit wrote:
| 117. 472% of grade school students are unable to readily
| convert between fractions and percentages.
|
| 38.157% of informally provided statistics are made up on
| the spot under the assumption nobody will actually check.
| MR4D wrote:
| You have a typo - it's actually 83.157%
| hinkley wrote:
| Who is the intended butt of your joke here?
|
| And explain to me why it isn't you?
| jychang wrote:
| He's being self deprecating, yes
| CookieCrisp wrote:
| I am pretty sure they intended the butt of the joke to be
| intentionally themselves
| maxlin wrote:
| Communication is hard. If they said "Takes 50% to 200% more
| time" it would have been clearer
| froggit wrote:
| What? No, that's confusing enough it's almost hostile. The
| fact thst your math is wrong is proof enough. 50% to 200%
| more time is 1.5x to 3x slower.
|
| I don't like how it was worded by the author. But all
| you've done is essentially invert the wording while making
| the math MORE difficult in the process.
| wayfinder wrote:
| Umm what? I hear "50% more time" all the time.
|
| 50% to 200% is 0.5x slower to 2x slower.
|
| People seem to be confusing "% slower/more time" vs "% of
| current time"
| croes wrote:
| It depends. What do you think if I say it's 1x slower?
|
| Is it as fast as the original or does it take twice as long?
| emi2k01 wrote:
| Twice as long. As fast as the original would be "0x slower"
| or "1x as fast".
|
| People should just use duration instead of speed as you did
| at the end: "takes twice as long", "takes 1/3 of the
| time..."
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > As fast as the original would be "0x slower" or "1x as
| fast".
|
| I have played a fair number of incremental games and this
| quickly became a pet peeve of mine. So many will say
| things like "2x more" and it will actually be "2x as
| much". Fortunately, I don't recall any which actually
| switch between the meanings but it's so commonly a
| guessing game until I figure it out.
| [deleted]
| Mockapapella wrote:
| I want this for LLMs. Having that much less of a memory
| footprint would allow us to put more models on a GPU at a time,
| and assuming the clock could keep up it could more than make up
| for the loss in inference speed per individual model
| Nevermark wrote:
| Impressive!
|
| Verily, the era is nigh wherein even lamps and toasters shall
| brim with surpassing sagacity.
|
| After exposure to this field for many years, the last decade was
| stunning.
|
| I say "was", because the speedup in the last 6-18 months has been
| another thing altogether.
|
| I am not concerned with what we will be able to two years hence,
| but with how much faster progress will be. And then again, and
| again.
| riskable wrote:
| Ooh! _A toaster that takes a prompt_ and generates that image
| on your toast! The GPU heat could be harnessed to actually
| toast the toast.
|
| Let's make a startup!
| mkaic wrote:
| _We 're extremely proud to announce that ToasterDream has
| raised $323M in Series A funds, and we look forward to many
| years of exciting developments ahead. As the CEO I'd like to
| personally assure our loyal customers that taking this
| funding will not compromise the quality of our goods and
| services -- rather, quite the opposite! In fact, in just the
| first month since we secured this funding with our investors,
| we have already managed to create an entirely new product!
| It's called ToasterDream Ultra, and allows users to toast up
| to 8 images simultaneously for just $5.99/month..._
| lawlessone wrote:
| This would be really cool to have running embedded in a digital
| photo frame or wall painting.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| I'm building exactly that with an eink display atm. Sadly, i
| can't seem to be able to build the XNNPACK stuff on my pi zero
| 2W in the repo...
| chasd00 wrote:
| that's an awesome idea, do you have a link to more
| information?
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Ill write it up once it's done and post here, if it gains
| traction you might see it haha.
|
| In all seriousness I can give a brief overview:
|
| - I'll probably offload the image generation to the 5 year
| old intel nuc I already have as a home automation server,
| comfyUI in CPU mode takes 20-30 mins for a generation.
| Ideally it's all self contained on the Pi but that might be
| beyond me, skill wise.
|
| - prompts are composed by taking time of day, season,
| special occasions (birthdays, xmas etc); adding random
| subjects from a long manually curated list; then asking
| gpt4 to creatively remix the prompt for variety
|
| - i have an inky impression 7.3 inch 7 color eink display
| and a raspberry zero stuck onto it. Right now it'll simply
| download new images from the NUC every once in a while
|
| - i like wood and i dislike the jagged 3d printer aesthetic
| so I'll create a frame from laser cut plywood by designing
| some stackable svg shapes in inkscape and sending those to
| a laser cutter
|
| It works right now, functionally.
|
| Considering that I'm painstakingly writing this on a phone
| with a sleeping 3 week old baby on my chest it'll be while
| before i have the energy to make it look like something
| you'd hang on your wall
| eigenvalue wrote:
| Great idea, where every 10 hours or so it would refresh with a
| new image it created itself (perhaps based on a theme supplied
| by the user).
| [deleted]
| amelius wrote:
| Not very environment-friendly, though.
| numpad0 wrote:
| That's where $1999 color E Ink display comes into play.
| lawlessone wrote:
| There are cheaper.. but it might require dithering..
| nathanfig wrote:
| 2.5A 5V is not much power, and it would use considerably less
| when idling.
| notjtrig wrote:
| 125 watt hours for a raspberry pi to generate an image in
| 10 hours compared to 7 watt hours for a 440W PC to run for
| 1 minute.
| lawlessone wrote:
| Is this for a regular Pi . The OP post is using a Pi Zero
| 2.
|
| That is big though
| aftbit wrote:
| Why do you say that? The energy usage of inference? I would
| guess that the embodied energy of the digital photo frame is
| probably higher.
| agilob wrote:
| Dude, we are literally using single use plastic bottles to
| store water for a few weeks in them.
| dopidopHN wrote:
| Nothing is stopping you to buy a reusable bottle.
| amelius wrote:
| We are literally using LED lighting because it saves energy
| over conventional light bulbs.
|
| And now we're going to put a screen on the wall that we
| don't even look at 99% of the time?
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| If we're doing one bad thing already, we may as well do a
| hundred!
| naillo wrote:
| Watch 5 seconds of a tv show with your big tv and you've
| spent that environmental cost
| lawlessone wrote:
| Compared to what though?
|
| I think it might be friendlier in some aspects than fetching
| an image from a server running the big the models.
|
| And you don't have to worry about service disruptions or api
| keys
|
| An e-ink display doing it should only use energy when
| refreshes. And you could minimize refreshes to once a day,
| week, etc
|
| Less friendly than a photo of course.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-03 23:00 UTC)