Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Running Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 in 298MB of RAM

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 166 posts

Re: Running Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 in 298MB of RAM

#71

Post by ethbr1 »

tavavex wrote: post #64
ethbr1 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

..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.

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.

Re: Running Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 in 298MB of RAM

#72

Post by dartos »

FloatArtifact wrote: post #70
pphysch wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is virtually impossible because Turing-complete systems are everywhere

Can you explain that context a little bit of Turing complete?

You can’t regulate the ownership of computing devices.

It’s too generic. There are too many of them.

Re: Running Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 in 298MB of RAM

#73

Post by cortesoft »

samr71 wrote: post #9

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!).

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.

Re: Running Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 in 298MB of RAM

#74

Post by riskable »

Nevermark wrote: post #61

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.

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!

Re: Running Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 in 298MB of RAM

#77

Post by tavavex »

ethbr1 wrote: post #71
tavavex wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..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.

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.

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.

Re: Running Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 in 298MB of RAM

#78

Post by TeddyDD »

smusamashah wrote: post #54
biomcgary wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also $29 to get pre-trained model assets to run code.

Why does this one needs pretrained models? Can't we use any of the thousands of already available ones?

Hard to tell since there is zero documentation in regard to models.

Re: Running Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 in 298MB of RAM

#79

Post by natdempk »

samr71 wrote: post #9

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!).

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?

Re: Running Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 in 298MB of RAM

#80

Post by hinkley »

dahart wrote: post #15
SigmundurM wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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".

Maybe they meant 50%-200% slower, in which case the x-factor range would really be 1.5x to 3x?

200% slower is 3x as long, yes.
Post reply on HN