As a Krea2 local model enjoyer, your challenge is that on the $20 GPT plan you get a fairly good amount of Codex use and image gen. If I used Krea, it would be because I fine tuned/built a workflow on top of it to do something GPT image couldn't/wouldn't do. Maybe there's a market for the cheapest "good enough" bulk image gen model (spam? idk what the applications would be), but personally I'd say you should focus on workflow add-ons/one click fine tuning/etc that design companies can use to create assets with their custom "look" since the GPT-Image look will become blase from overuse.

▲

dvrp 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Businesses need more than just cost per image than a raw ChatGPT subscription doesn’t give you.

There’s also workflows around non-frontier models that make sense, especially at-scale (think internationalization of a marketing campaign to 200 countries across different media formats). A lot of the same rules that apply to LLMs apply to diffusion. The same argument could be made around Codex/Astra/Sol and many people are happily paying for tools like Devin/Cognition.

But I agree with you that if you are not careful, the subsidies from big labs can eat your business.

EDIT: I hope you’re enjoying Krea 2! What GPU are you running it on?

	▲	trentor an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think the early models distorted the perception of what artists actually need. It's not about workflows. Image creation is inherently iterative. None of the platforms seem to understand that, while AI artists have somehow fallen in love with the unnecessary complexity of node-based tools. Apparently, 400 tangled noodles look impressive when the boss peers over your shoulder. The big studios and agencies are all building custom tooling as they always have but now a lot faster.