Sdxl was 3 models too. Base, refiner and vae.
Cascade is 3. Lores, hires, vae.
69 MJ is 19.17 kWh. About 86p of electricity at today's wholesale price in the UK (£45/MWh: today is fairly average).
The research they are doing is great, but there's so much engineering to be done to turn fusion into something practical; something capable of running streams of pulses, not just single ones.
This was the last experiment for this reactor running it outside of design limits.
The trained model is a work derived from masses of copywrite material. Distribution of that model is infringement, same as distributing copies of movies. Public access to that model is infringement, just as a public screening of a movie is.
People keep thinking it's "the picture the AI drew" that's the issue. They're wrong. It's the "AI" itself.
What do you think the trained model is other than a derived work?
Promotional images are still under copyright.
AI is creating an image based on someone else's property. The difference is it's owned by a corporation.
This isn't the issue. The copyright infringement is the creation of the model using the copywrite work as training data.
All NYT is doing is demonstrating that the model must have been created using copywrite works, and hence infringement has taken place. They are not stating that the model is committing an infringement itself.
They are showing that the author of the tool has comitted massive copyright infringement in the process construction of the tool.
...unless they licensed all the copyright works they trained the model on. (Hint: they didn't, and we know they didn't because the copyright holders haven't licensed their work for that purpose. )
It doesn't matter if a company charges or not for anything. It's not a factor in copyright law.
Copyleft is not public domain, and requires copyright law to function.
We, the human race.
...or at least in this article, we the British, as the stats are for the UK.