zlacker

>>geox+(OP)
I think the competition for text to image services is over and open source, stable diffusion won. It doesn't matter how detailed (or whatever counts as "better") corporate text-to-image products get, stable diffusion is good enough which really is good enough. Unlike the corporate offerings, open source txt2img doesn't have random restrictions (no its not just porn at this point) and actually allows for additional scripts/tooling/models. If you're attempting to do anything on a professional level or produce an image with specific details via txt2img, you likely have a workflow with txt2img being only step one.

Why bother using a product from a company that is notorious for failing to commit to most of their services, when you can run something which produces output that is pretty close (and maybe better) and is free to run and change and train?

>>boh+VY
> Why bother using a product from a company that is notorious for failing to commit to most of their services, when you can run something which produces output that is pretty close (and maybe better) and is free to run and change and train?

Because it costs $0.02 per image instead of $1000 on a graphics card and endless buggering around to set up.

>>nprate+R41
you can use stable diffusion on many hosted services out there (eg Replicate) for fractions of a cent. 2 cents per image is absurdly expensive, they're anchoring that on the dalle3 price, which likely won't go down because there's little incentive to do so, specially from their stakeholders/partners (shutterstock, etc)