[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)