"This Colab is available only for paid plan users" on-off switch for developers
camenduru opened this issue · comments
Hi Colab Team! 👋 First, thanks for the Colab Project ❤
I enjoy converting AI projects into Colab notebooks 😀 you can find more here: https://github.com/camenduru
and this project https://github.com/camenduru/stable-diffusion-webui-colab has become super popular 🥳 and it looks like the GPU go brrrrrrr 🤣
Thanks to Chris Perry for the clear explanation of why we are getting the scary 😱 message: https://twitter.com/thechrisperry/status/1649189902079381505
Is it possible to make this message clearer, such as 'This Colab is available only for paid plan users' instead of making it seem like the Colab developers made something suspicious? 😋
and for the feature "This Colab is available only for paid plan users" on-off switch for developers!
Thanks ❤
https://twitter.com/camenduru
I'm fully agreeing on this, I was aware that Chris had stated the same thing that these SHOULD be available for paid users, as far as he was aware. Though as of tonight a custom colab I was using for Web UI kept disconnecting without even giving me a captcha. I wasn't even given a "this code is against ToS" - though i am now again a paid user, as I topped up my points. This is extremely expensive for me as it is for many people - and while I understand FULLY why in some ways Free tier must sort of look elsewhere - it's only A1111 that seems to be gotten hit.
My query along with i'm sure others like Camenduru is on top of this, why not Easy Diffusion? Why Not Invoke? Could colab explain why it's a1111? is it the Gradio instances? IS there something inheritley in A1111 extensions that takes up too much resources..
Why can't there be a workaround instead of a functional "half ban" or "termination"?
So anything A1111 is a no go ? Or can we use it "interactively" by calling the api's from within the colab environment somehow, instead of using the webui
We've updated the wording of the big scary prompt, and yeah, I'm thinking about how to better position this for folks, thanks for the feedback!
We've updated the wording of the big scary prompt, and yeah, I'm thinking about how to better position this for folks, thanks for the feedback!
Hmm, very interesting – you have set a precedent when one popular (and free) repository becomes available only to those with a pro subscription. What's next? Are you going to block other projects which will become super popular and make them available only with Pro subscription? Well, what if this subscription is not available for my country? What's the point of a free subscription if you can make ANY repository available at any time to only those who have paid, explaining that it “consumes a lot of resources”? And if Stable Diffusion webui consumes so many resources, why not just switch to CPU usage after a certain period of time (as it was before, without taking away completely the ability to run that project)? I've been using Google Colab for years and trying my best to comply with fair resource usage, but such decisions would not only alienate regular users (or perhaps those who planned or bought pro subscriptions) but would also just undermine trust. This is my personal opinion, I'm not imposing it on anyone, but I'm extremely disappointed that you are taking such steps. Making it possible to run one of the most popular and free projects at the moment, only for those who have paid! I wonder what will happen next? Allow less popular repositories only for Pro subscriptions and more popular repositories only for Pro+? I guess I have nothing more to add.
The decision to offer a free plan was an early action, and nobody could have foreseen the rapid development of AI. As a company, Google has its own financial guidelines. Although we often treat this "enterprise" as an individual, the team responsible for running and maintaining the product may indeed need to make necessary trade-offs within their existing resources.
They might have noticed the sudden surge in demand through system monitoring and promptly responded. This decision falls within their management scope. Otherwise, they would need to "request new resources, triggering a series of approval processes" or "inevitably affect other users in situations of resource conflict." Therefore, I understand the actions of the Google Colab team.
Of course, as fans of Google, we have boundless aspirations and hope that Google will respond with an entrepreneurial spirit and fulfill its initial free commitment. However, different departments within a large enterprise inevitably face actions that are "unrelated to them," unless the matter has become a public event, impacting the company's image and other aspects. Otherwise, I don't think anyone would pay attention to it.
Hi @cperry-goog 👋 Please do not add open-source developers' names to your unethical list.
!wget contains_words_from_your_unethical_list.ipynb
%run contains_words_from_your_unethical_list.ipynb
Also, what is the point of your unethical list? I don't get it.