391–400 of 718 posts
I don't understand the excitement around generating and/or watching AI-produced videos. To me it's probably the single most uninteresting and boring thing related to AI that I can think of. What is the appeal?
Nonetheless, ask it to “create an infographic on how Google works”. Do you not see any excitement in the result? I think it’s pretty impressive and has a lot of utility.
Actually, Gemini 3 is about the same, and doesn't feel as good as Claude 4.5. I have a feeling it's been fine-tuned for a cool front-end marketing effect.
Furthermore, I really don't understand why AI Studio, now requiring me to use its own API for payment, still adds a watermark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then the question becomes, can it incorporate targeted feedback, or is it a oneshot-or-bust affair? My experience is that ChatGPT is very good at iterating on text (prose, code) but fairly bad at iterating on images. It struggles to integrate small changes, choosing instead to start over from scratch, with wildly different results. Thinking especially here of architectural stuff, where it does a great job laying out…
I would assume it depends on how it generates the images. I've used Claude to generate fairly simple icons and launch images for an iOS game and I make sure to have it start with SVG files since those can be defined as code first. This way it's easier to iterate on specific elements of the image (certain shapes need to be moved to a different position, color needs to be changed, text needs an update, etc.). FWIW not…
I don't understand the excitement around generating and/or watching AI-produced videos. To me it's probably the single most uninteresting and boring thing related to AI that I can think of. What is the appeal?
Does anyone know if this is predicting the entire image at once, or if it's breaking it into constituent steps i.e. "draw text in this font at this location" and then composing it from those "tools"? It would be really interesting if they've solved the garbled text problem within the constraint of predicting the entire image at once.
Model results
1. Nano Banana Pro: 10 / 12
2. Seedream4: 9 / 12
3. Nano Banana: 7 / 12
4. Qwen Image Edit: 6 / 12
If you just want to see how NB and NB Pro compare against each other:
https://genai-showdown.specr.net/image-editing?models=nb,nbp
I don't understand the excitement around generating and/or watching AI-produced videos. To me it's probably the single most uninteresting and boring thing related to AI that I can think of. What is the appeal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is a GREAT example of the (not so) subtle mistakes AI will make in image generation, or code creation, or your future knee surgery. The mistake is in the prompting (not enough information). The AI did the best it could "What's the biggest known planet" "Jupiter" "NO I MEANT IN THE UNIVERSE!"
No, this is squarely on the AI. A human would know what you mean without specific instructions.
Wow! I was able to combine Nano Banana Pro and Veo 3.1 video generation in a single chat and it produced great results. https://chat.vlm.run/c/38b99710-560c-4967-839b-4578a4146956 . Really cool model
I see many recent accounts posting vlm.run links and if this is what I suspect it is, that's normally not allowed here.
Google needs to pace themselves. AI studio, Antigravity, Banana, Banana Pro, Grape Ultra, Gemini 3, etc. This information overload don't do them any good whatsoever.