But why is that a criticism? I tried running SD on my computer a few months ago. I spent several hours trying to install the dependencies and eventually gave up. I'm sure it wouldn't have been a big deal for someone familiar with python but for me it was a massive hassle and I eventually failed to make it run at all.
For this one, as long as my browser supports WebGPU (which will be widely supported soon) and I have the system resources, it will run. Barely any technical knowledge needed, doesn't matter what OS or brand of GPU I have. Isn't that really cool? It reduces both technical and knowledge based barriers to entry. Why do people criticize this so strongly?
After seeing the sort of argument you are replying to countless times on HN, I came to a simple conclusion. Some people, esp on HN, just have disdain for anyone who might not be willing to deal with the hubris of running a piece of software, because it invites "lower common denominator", and they don't want to "taint" their hobby by the presence of "normies" in what used to be their exclusive domain.
In a similar vein, you can find plenty of comments on HN faulting the massive proliferation of smartphones among the general population throughout 2010s for "ruining" web, software ecosystems, application paradigms, etc. There are plenty of things one could potentially criticize smartphones for, and some of that criticism indeed has merit. But this specific point about "ruining" things feels almost like a different version of the same argument above - niche things becoming widely adopted by the masses and "ruining" their "cool kids club."
Another similar example from an entirely unrelated domain - comic books and their explosion in popularity after Marvel movies repeatedly killing it in the box office. I don't even like Marvel movies, barely watched any of them, but the elitism around hating things becoming more popular is just silly.
The objection (more surprise than objection) is that web browsers are supposed to be sandboxed environments. They are not supposed to be able to do things that negatively impact system performance. It is surprising you can do things involving multi-gb of ram in a web browser. It has nothing to do with what you are using that ram for or if its cool or not.
I dont think anybody has an objection to making it easier to run stable diffusion and i think the only way you could come to that conclusion is intentionally misunterpreting people's comments.
> The objection (more surprise than objection) is that web browsers are supposed to be sandboxed environments. They are not supposed to be able to do things that negatively impact system performance.
I agree with the sandboxing model, but it is orthogonal to WebGPU and impacting system performance. Sandboxing is about making the environment hermetic (for security purposes and such), not about full hardware bandwidth isolation.
First, there is no way for web browsers to have no system performance impact whatsoever. Browsers already use hardware acceleration (which you can disable, thus alleviating your WebGPU concerns as well), your RAM, and your CPU.
Second, afaik WebGPU has limits on how much of your GPU resources it is allowed to use (for the exact purpose of limiting system performance impact).
