[HN Gopher] Stable Diffusion 3 API Now Available
___________________________________________________________________
Stable Diffusion 3 API Now Available
Author : roborovskis
Score : 208 points
Date : 2024-04-17 14:26 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (stability.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (stability.ai)
| MyFirstSass wrote:
| - Models will be released
|
| - 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?
| theolivenbaum wrote:
| *under $1m annual revenue and <1m users
| Lacerda69 wrote:
| What SaaS company discloses their Enterprise prices?
| MyFirstSass wrote:
| A tangent but i believe all pricing should public information
| by law above some threshold to battle corruption, nepotism,
| cartel making and monopolies.
|
| I've seen too many governments and even medium sized
| companies paying absurd amounts to some shitty locked in
| cloud platform with lots of better alternatives, because
| someone got kickbacks, gifts, vacations or a seat on some
| board, and everyone should be more enraged.
|
| The EU has tried to battle this with various public
| procurement processes but it's a big clown show of course so
| i don't know what the solution is.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| Unless there's absolutely no alternative, and it's
| something I desperately need, I basically won't buy
| anything that says "call for pricing" or some such, because
| I interpret that as "call so one of our trained liars
| (i.e., salesmen) can figure out how hard we can screw you".
|
| In many cases I'd even pay a premium to avoid talking to
| one of those people.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| You're not the target market, the CTO, CIO, or business
| development representatives are. So many developers say
| they won't ever buy "call for pricing" software, like,
| yeah, they know you won't, in fact that's what they bank
| on.
| Sharlin wrote:
| And the execs won't really worry about "how hard the
| salesmen can screw them", they know the rules of the game
| and understand that negotiations are negotiations. It's a
| negotiator's job to try to get a good deal, and that
| works both ways.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Yes. Devs who don't know sales are obviously not their
| demographic, they'll be speaking to layers of other biz
| dev people before they even get to the execs, and each
| one knows exactly how to extract concessions and
| discounts, and the opposing salesperson knows exactly how
| much of a discount they can give. In this way, it is much
| more of an efficient market than most devs think.
|
| Devs' reaction to all this is honestly the same as when a
| non-technical exec tells a dev why they "can't just get
| it done in a day, it shouldn't be that hard right?"
| People have their own competencies and are usually blind
| to others'.
| pid-1 wrote:
| CTO in a financial institution here.
|
| I don't talk to sales.
| dheera wrote:
| Yeah on multiple occasions I've e-mailed said businesses
| and said "This other business has it for $X. Beat that
| and I'll buy yours. I don't have time for a call."
|
| I want products at my doorstep in exchange for $. I don't
| want a goddamn coffee chat.
| dheera wrote:
| I fully agree, or at the VERY LEAST pricing information
| should be disclosable and any NDA around pricing should be
| automatically void and unenforceable.
|
| How the hell do I know they're not giving me higher prices
| due to racial profiling or some other unethical reason?
|
| That would allow, at least, some sort of website or chrome
| plugin to exist that fetches and displays previously-
| submitted pricing information as an overlay next to any
| idiotic "call for pricing" statements.
|
| That is the way I would run a country if I was its
| president.
| EricMausler wrote:
| I specialize in costing/pricing, not in saas however. There
| are a lot of reasons why what you are asking for is likely
| not realistic. It unfortunately does get abused, though,
| and I fully agree with how bullshit some of the
| arrangements are. It's just the people taking advantage of
| the situation are doing so knowing that the "cover" for it
| is legitimate.
|
| Maybe there are ways to address the abuse without forcing
| upfront pricing?
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _...they can tax you to death if you build a service that
| competes with their API right..._
|
| 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.
| ranit wrote:
| > 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.
| black3r wrote:
| The "undisclosed" also mean they can just straight up give
| you different prices than they give to your competition which
| can affect fair competition in your field. Imagine that you
| compete with them in some different field..., or an easier
| one - if you compete with their investors' other
| investments...,
|
| or you're in a country with politicians donation/spending
| limits (which are common outside USA) and they give their
| software for $1 to "that one annoying politician" and it
| won't count as a discount towards their donation limit,
| because the "original price" is unknown.
| chmod775 wrote:
| > The "undisclosed" also mean they can just straight up
| give you different prices than they give to your
| competition which can affect fair competition in your
| field.
|
| They could do that anyways. This changes nothing.
|
| Negotiating custom contracts is standard practice at the
| high end anyways. If your company is spending hundreds of
| thousands of dollars each month on something at _list
| price_ , chances are you either got too much money or the
| company is run by suckers.
| wongarsu wrote:
| > 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.
| alexvitkov wrote:
| "Should be fine" doesn't cut it if you want to base your
| business on it and have no alternatives.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Every Android or iOS App is a "should be fine" type of
| deal. So are lots of other things. If you are really
| worried I'm sure there's a sales person willing to take
| your call right now. It's not ideal, but honestly not that
| exceptional. And if push comes to shove you do have
| alternatives, you just need to sacrifice a bit of quality,
| maybe deployment complexity, and tune your prompts
| differently for one of the other models.
| daveguy wrote:
| Do android and iOS stores have undisclosed fee structures
| for high revenue or high usage apps? I was under the
| impression that the fees were at least transparent, even
| if they do represent monopolistic rent seeking.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| There were several instances that came out in recent
| court cases of the app stores negotiating custom deals
| with strategically-important apps.
|
| E.g. Spotify:
| https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-
| spotify-...
|
| So typical "above this negotiating power, let's talk
| terms", and everybody smaller has to pay list price.
| astrange wrote:
| The Android app stores. The iOS app store doesn't have
| any known deals.
| frumper wrote:
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-
| pri...
| etaioinshrdlu wrote:
| The enterprise subscription costs $120k/year. You might be able
| to haggle it down.
| BaculumMeumEst wrote:
| 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?
| dheera wrote:
| 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.
| apetresc wrote:
| > 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?
| poniko wrote:
| Big jump in price per generation and now is in line with dall3.
| So is the model 20-30 times more gpu intense or did they decide
| to finally make money?
| jsheard wrote:
| After that report a few weeks ago saying they literally can't
| afford to pay their AWS bills I would guess it's the latter.
|
| 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._
| emadm wrote:
| Made that 4m last a long time eh ^_^
| the_duke wrote:
| This Reddit thread from someone with early access has some sample
| images:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1c2je28/i_...
|
| 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.
| airstrike wrote:
| I didn't think those were bad at all
| the_duke wrote:
| Not bad, but also not the big jump over fine-tuned SD1.5/SDXL
| checkpoints that some expected.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| That woman at the top (at least I assume it's supposed to be
| a woman) should be wearing a beauty pageant sash reading "Ms
| Uncanny Valley of 2024". Creepy AF, IMO.
|
| Agreed that some of the others aren't so bad, however the bar
| for a convincing swamp creature is a lot lower than for a
| convincing human being.
|
| If breasts come out looking like that, I'd be taking a hard
| look at my training data.
| Hoasi wrote:
| The whole picture reeks of bad taste. The hands are
| particularly terrible. Total fail! But then again, maybe
| it's due to a poor prompt.
| GaggiX wrote:
| The real value of Stable Diffusion models are the finetuned
| models when the base model is released.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Non-open licensing may adversely impact that.
| wongarsu wrote:
| 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
| butterchaos wrote:
| Those are shockingly bad.
|
| 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 wrote:
| "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.?
| glass-z13 wrote:
| Looks like it
| accrual wrote:
| 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.
| astrange wrote:
| Emad said it will be the same as before on reddit.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1c6awnl/co...
| zone411 wrote:
| I ran the same quick prompt adherence and composition test on
| which ImageFX by Google surpasses DALL-E 3 by a bit
| (https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/open-
| thread-315/comment/493...):
|
| 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 wrote:
| 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?
| zone411 wrote:
| Like I said, it's a quick test, not a benchmark. The original
| question was about getting at least one of out 10 right
| (https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/a-guide-to-asking-robots-
| to...). Feel free to run them yourself, takes 5 minutes.
| zone411 wrote:
| [deleted]
| perstablintome wrote:
| 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/
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Doesn't really matter. If the model is generally more capable
| and released, then it's trivial to teach it a few more things.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-17 23:01 UTC)