Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

$100 AI Music Video: Claude Fable 5 vs. GPT-5.6 Sol

tryai.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 581 posts

Re: $100 AI Music Video: Claude Fable 5 vs. GPT-5.6 Sol

#231

Post by interroboink »

Systemerror7A69 wrote: post #207
interroboink wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meaningful art is not mass-produced, generated content. Andy Warhol might disagree [1] (: (I realize that's not exactly apples-to-apples, but y'know.) Or there's "art is anything you can get away with," which I just mention to point out that this kind of issue ("what is art?") is not new. In some ways it seems like a good thing to get people, like you, riled up about these topics, arguing the merits of their point…

I don't think that example applies at all here. The quote you quoted itself said it - "subjects for high art". Theres a difference between treating the banalities of life as SUBJECTS for your art and making human, non-mass produced art from that ( like the paining you linked) vs just treating the soup cans themselves as art. At least that's my interpretation of it

I agree it's not a perfect parallel. But it was very much part of a movement that challenged traditional notions of what art was, and spurned similar debates and outrage as here.

Perhaps a more apt example would be Duchamp's "Fountain" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp))

Re: $100 AI Music Video: Claude Fable 5 vs. GPT-5.6 Sol

#233

Post by fallinditch »

boca_honey wrote: post #165

I don't have a problem with AI and can't stand the anti-AI brigade, but... this is the worst thing I have ever seen in my life. This specific type of garbage is exactly what arms the anti-AI critics with valid arguments. We should really wait a few years for the technology to mature before releasing these kinds of projects into the cultural sphere.

My first thought was "we'll be seeing a lot more of this sort of thing, we're so fucked" but then found myself being quite amused by the AI-glitching mistakes in the GPT 5.6 $25 effort: lean into the strange glitching and I won't be too upset.

Re: $100 AI Music Video: Claude Fable 5 vs. GPT-5.6 Sol

#234

Post by CapsAdmin »

beambot wrote: post #213
anon7000 wrote: post #183

Tangent: philosophically to me, art is inherently human. What makes art meaningful and impactful isn’t whether it looks good or cool. It’s the story of the artist, the context of the art itself, the hard work and struggle involved, the meaning represented by a human creating something very specific to their own personal context and taste. Or a mix of any of that. Can AI be used as a tool to help create art? Absolutel…

> What makes art meaningful and impactful isn’t whether it looks good or cool. I fall on the other side of that coin: I care about the final output way more than the story & struggle of the artist. Also: Nature is probably the most epic artist in my book - a sunset, leaf, coral or rock can outshine virtually any human creation.

I think most people care about the final output, especially the market. This is why many artists complain about mainstream art, because it genuinely isn't interesting from an artist's perspective.

I'm not too familiar with visual arts, but I know most jazz musicians make a living off of teaching music and doing concerts where the attendees are just other musicians. It's very much centered around technique and human performance. (the term musician's musician is also used here)

Meanwhile, the average person think jazz is noise.

So my point is, saying "What makes music meaningful..." sounds more like an elitist jazz musician take. (I'd say jazz musicians tend to be more self deprecating than elitist, and often make light of the genre and how people perceive it!)

Re: $100 AI Music Video: Claude Fable 5 vs. GPT-5.6 Sol

#236

Post by echelon »

sph wrote: post #96
echelon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Directors and editors using Seedance can fire the film studio. This is a fundamental shift in how storytelling is funded and made, not in who does the driving. Same as is happening with code.

Dude you have been salivating at the thought of seeing developers fired, now film studios, for months now. Give it a rest, this is unhealthy.

> Dude you have been salivating at the thought of seeing developers fired,

I don't think you understand my arguments at all.

I don't want people to lose jobs. I don't want the advantages to accrue to a few hyperscalers.

I want there to be more work, more money, more societal progress. For everyone.

AI currently enables experts in their domains (code, film, game design, music) to get the work of small teams done. It is now possible for dedicated, hard-working ICs in several domains to produce extremely good products in a short amount of time without external capital and without studio meddling. This is a good thing.

Re: $100 AI Music Video: Claude Fable 5 vs. GPT-5.6 Sol

#237

Post by CapsAdmin »

interroboink wrote: post #229
CapsAdmin wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In these discussions, the concept of perceiving content gets intertwined with how content was made, because artists and creatives are usually more interested in how something was made. So unless these two concepts are separated, people will endlessly talk past each other assuming both sides hold the same fundamental beliefs. Claiming you made something by yourself, when in reality someone else made it (AI) is easy to…

> the concept of perceiving content gets intertwined with how content was made It reminds me also of the eternal "can we separate the art from the artist" debate, too. For instance, some people (myself included) find that their experience of some art that they previously enjoyed is soured when they learn that whoever made it is a Bad Person in some way. Neil Gaiman comes to mind as a recent example. I think it goes b…

Maybe we care about where something comes from, but we don't have the will to care about everything? (also, never meet your heroes comes to mind regarding the endless debate)

For example, I had never thought or cared where the trash can in my office came from. I forgot where I bought it from. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm a little curious, but is it worth knowing? If I knew the designer of the trash can was a bad person, should I get get a new one and make sure the designer of that trash can is a good person?

I think logically and ethically yes, but I'm not willing to spend my time on this.

It's an extreme example, but I think the same applies to music, art, movies, etc, just to a lesser degree for people who claim they care more about the outcome than the human author.

Re: $100 AI Music Video: Claude Fable 5 vs. GPT-5.6 Sol

#238

Post by CapsAdmin »

conductr wrote: post #219
beambot wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What makes art meaningful and impactful isn’t whether it looks good or cool. I fall on the other side of that coin: I care about the final output way more than the story & struggle of the artist. Also: Nature is probably the most epic artist in my book - a sunset, leaf, coral or rock can outshine virtually any human creation.

I'm in the middle. Sometimes the artist story is so compelling it almost makes the body of work make sense on a new dimension. However, having said that, I also am highly skeptical of authenticity and almost always believe the art is created and the story gets written after the fact as some artistic song and dance because no story/why/reason is never an option.

It's also somewhat considered lame and cliche to ask an artist where their idea came from, and what their intention was.

However people will claim that the artist had an intention, it was just not obvious to the artist at the time. The art was also shaped by their experiences, etc. So in contrast, AI does not have this intention.

Re: $100 AI Music Video: Claude Fable 5 vs. GPT-5.6 Sol

#239

Post by userbinator »

interroboink wrote: post #191
anon7000 wrote: post #183

Tangent: philosophically to me, art is inherently human. What makes art meaningful and impactful isn’t whether it looks good or cool. It’s the story of the artist, the context of the art itself, the hard work and struggle involved, the meaning represented by a human creating something very specific to their own personal context and taste. Or a mix of any of that. Can AI be used as a tool to help create art? Absolutel…

> Meaningful art is not mass-produced, generated content. Andy Warhol might disagree [1] (: (I realize that's not exactly apples-to-apples, but y'know.) Or there's "art is anything you can get away with," which I just mention to point out that this kind of issue ("what is art?") is not new. In some ways it seems like a good thing to get people, like you, riled up about these topics, arguing the merits of their point…

it was 100% AI generated?

Depending on what you mean, this is currently not possible, and probably not ever possible, because as much as people like to call things "autonomous", these AIs are still ultimately being directed by humans to do things. Prompting an AI is on a different level of abstraction, like writing software in a HLL and using a compiler instead of keying in machine instructions on a hexpad, but IMHO it is still the work of a human.

...and then you look at what people who are professional artists do and call art: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedian_(artwork)

Post reply on HN