51–60 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CEO being a fraud could be a possible reason. Just saying.
You shouldn't judge people by what Forbes says, but what people do. So far, Emad delivers on what he promises (with some delays here and there), and Stability.ai is the only one that publish image / video generation models at production quality.
Of course the verb they're looking for is founders . A flounder is a fish. Founder (as a verb) means "to fail."
Of course the verb they're looking for is founders . A flounder is a fish. Founder (as a verb) means "to fail."
Of course the verb they're looking for is founders . A flounder is a fish. Founder (as a verb) means "to fail."
I think “flounder” is fine in this context.
Stability always seemed like a dark horse thanks to the reputation of their founder and their open source business model. I do get some schadenfreude from seeing them like this considering the damage many feel they've done to the art community. E: -4 in 10 minutes. Stay classy hackernews. I hope this company and OpenAI choke on the algorithmic disgorgement when the law catches up.
Boo hoo. This is not the first nor the last democratization of art. First people weren’t starving so many more could afford to become artists, printing presses could mass copy art, world wide shipping lanes moved styles, computer aids then photoshop, now AI. It’s always “been damaging to the art community”.
Now… to steelman the argument, it’s never been lower skill or easier to create your own modification or idea and get it in the style of some artist. In my opinion the low barrier to entry is obviously going to seem unfair - but - this is just going to make physical art more valuable.
If I were a sad-about-ai artist, I would jump in and see how new tools could improve my game.
SD3.0 looks really good and will probably displace a lot of closed image generation models once it's out. I don't understand why Stability gets so little support from the community. They released the first usable open-source models and their models are the foundation of the most interesting AI-bashing workflows out there - VC funded or otherwise.
Stability AI had massive support when Stable Diffusion 1.x and SDXL each hit the scene. But the Gen AI industry has evolved so rapidly that forks and iterations on the models outpaced them, especially commercially. That's a feature of open-source development, not a bug. But it's a reason (along with the general financial issues which are the company's fault alone) why Stability is switching to a "need a membership to…
that said i think its impt to acknowledge how much stability has shared in its research, just the other day they were on HN for Stable Video 3D, not to mention hourglass diffusion and other Stable* models. may not be the overwhelming SOTA but its real open source AI work that pushes the frontiers. you have to give them credit for that.
Every Forbes article should have the warning that they are not real publication anymore. Everything they publish is written with an intention that you believe an authors opinion as fact. The model for Stability ends in a likely way, they will be swallowed up in a payday. We have recent examples of this. For now, they’re the most open area in a garden of closing gates. And I wish them all the best.
*Every legacy media article
It takes $500 to be a “featured contributor” and they will post whatever nonsense you like. The brand is diluted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a violation of HN guidelines.
Posting paywalled links should be, as well. It's borderline marketing. If I pay for the source, I don't need to find it on HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. It is weird. On one hand, v3 looks really good, the arch is sound, and the work is solid. On the other hand, selling Clipdrop is not a good sign (a growing startup divest is uncommon). Emad likes to talk about how they were able to retain researchers and now this, so it is hard to know what's going on.
The CEO being a fraud could be a possible reason. Just saying.
I saw everyone repeating this over and over but then I actually read the article and couldn't even understand what the big deal was... hard to find a founder who hasn't done all the things he was accused off none of which were really a big deal.
Felt completely overblown and honestly like a weird hit piece but where the journo didn't actually find any real dirt to smear.