It makes more sense to embed stable diffusion capabilities into well-established image editors such as Gimp, Photoshop, Krita, or Figma, which come with layered, non-destructive functionalities, rather than attempting the opposite approach.
Gimp is so well established that it has almost fossilized...
Also, "Normal" layered non-destructive operations are a couple of orders of magnitude faster and do not require 8Gb of VRAM per 512x512 patch, or work only with fixed set of buffer sizes, or any of other strange things SD comes with. Like, how a non-destructive controlnet layer would look in Gimp?
Depends on where the 'opposite approach' is aimed to end. If the result is a totally new creative workflow then what is the point of carrying all the ballast of a legacy tool?
I got briefly very excited for non-destructive editing in GIMP, but the website still says this is slated for 3.2. Which functionality were you referring to?
Also, "Normal" layered non-destructive operations are a couple of orders of magnitude faster and do not require 8Gb of VRAM per 512x512 patch, or work only with fixed set of buffer sizes, or any of other strange things SD comes with. Like, how a non-destructive controlnet layer would look in Gimp?