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

301–310 of 581 posts

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

#301

Post by kdheiwns »

qbit42 wrote: post #272

AI is destroying the economics which allowed for a sizable middle class of artists. The issue is that many are paid for their art mostly for its aesthetic rather than artistic value. This isn’t the most creatively fulfilling, but it previously allowed many artists to make a living while refining their skills, often enabling them to pursue their real creative ambitions on the side.

AI enthusiasts actively want a world dominated by a few massive tech corps that'll steer our thoughts and kill creativity. The envy towards people who have skills that they polished is always very, very palpable when reading comments they make or hearing them talk in real life. But beyond just AI, the world is increasingly full of people who are proudly self-declared "accelerationists": accelerationism being the idea that we should make everything as shitty as possible because it'll make the world worse and bring everything down to their level. It's crabs in a bucket as a political, economic, and work philosophy.

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

#302

Post by Mashimo »

onesandofgrain wrote: post #274
Mashimo wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are they absurd and meaningless? Can be art and creative, just like the music.

Music videos take attention away from the actual art. It's purely a gimmick to make bad music sound better. ... and no, music videos are not art.

> music videos are not art.

Yes, they definitely are. I mean not all, but they can be. Just like cover photos on an LP or the music itself.

It might not do anything to you, but it's definitely art that can compliment the video. Might make it worse, might make it better. Might change the feeling.

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

#303

Post by arrrg »

karlkloss wrote: post #278
hbn wrote: post #257

Like most of this stuff, it's obviously impressive technology compared to what existed a few years ago. But the end product has zero artistic value. It's a grey goo of the average of every concept picked up from the concept of the song. A talented creative with a vision could make something more interesting and enjoyable in an afternoon with a $0 budget.

"It's a grey goo of the average of every concept picked up from the concept of the song." You just described 90% of todays music videos made by humans.

Even the worst music videos I have seen aren’t as incoherent as this mess.

This is actually mostly down to constraints: even if you suck you will suck in some coherent consistent way that will give your music videos more structure than this mess.

Those videos are just nihilistic despair.

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

#304

Post by BLKNSLVR »

VohuMana wrote: post #174
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #129

This is how you do AI music videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njk2YAgNMnE Lean into the not-quite-but-almost uncanny-valley-ness. Make it a feature, not a bug.

Along the same lines this one leans into it and makes something absolutely unique and wild: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dHAP3E5e2jc Behind the scenes here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UhOc0VXo7II I agree though, you can combine art with AI and make something really unique but the majority of art people are pushing with AI is in my opinion being rightfully branded as AI slop.

That is pretty amazing, with more intricacies and a coherence of shapes / objects through the whole thing.

AI as artists tool, not AI as artist.

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

#305

Post by starshadowx2 »

zeofig wrote: post #297
xbmcuser wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A talented creative with a vision can now direct AI to build things that would have otherwise cost millions or been entirely impossible. I don’t understand the myopic view people have when it comes to this technology. Just three or four years ago, we saw the exact same skepticism with programming. People insisted it can't do this and it can't do that, but many of those things are possible today.

It remains godawful slop in every instance I've seen, no matter how expensive it would be to produce without AI.

I think this new one made with Seedance 2.5 is actually not too bad.

https://x.com/BytePlusGlobal/status/2077321849806234080

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

#306

Post by defrost »

xbmcuser wrote: post #293
hbn wrote: post #257

Like most of this stuff, it's obviously impressive technology compared to what existed a few years ago. But the end product has zero artistic value. It's a grey goo of the average of every concept picked up from the concept of the song. A talented creative with a vision could make something more interesting and enjoyable in an afternoon with a $0 budget.

A talented creative with a vision can now direct AI to build things that would have otherwise cost millions or been entirely impossible. I don’t understand the myopic view people have when it comes to this technology. Just three or four years ago, we saw the exact same skepticism with programming. People insisted it can't do this and it can't do that, but many of those things are possible today.

"can" but generally doesn't .. and the rare gold is buried in a mountain of bland crap and outright propaganda, state level and crank level.

I have no objection to the potential vision you espouse, I have zero love for the actual ground level reality of the tsunami of AI slop videos being pumped out ATM - many are skewed toward trust building in a probable long con game of deceit or nation swaying, others are just ick.

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

#307

Post by latexr »

qurren wrote: post #193
altcognito wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, how is that relevant to the part that is generated by AI?

I honestly can't tell a good music video from a bad one. I don't know what makes a music video "good". These AI generated ones seemed pretty good to me, of the same caliber as those Michael Jackson or "Beez in the trap" things. It's all just butt shaking and sunglasses in Philips Hue lights chanting some meaningless words.

Imagine the blogpost was on AI generated classical music. Everyone, including the authors, agrees the result is shit. You, being classically trained, can understand more than most why the results are bad.

Then someone comes along and says “I honestly can't really tell how these are worse than the human produced ones. They all sound kinda the same to me” and “I honestly can’t tell a good piece of music from a bad one. I don’t know what makes a piece of music “good”. These AI generated ones seemed pretty good to me, on the same caliber as those Mozart or Beethoven things”.

That’s what you’re doing, and that’s why you’re being downvoted. It’s fine that you can’t tell, but it’s supremely obvious to everyone else.

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

#308

Post by coldtea »

Mashimo wrote: post #275
coldtea wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Visual effects went through this same development issues as the industry matured The industry haven't matured except until a certain point. Then it declined. Modern visual effects are worse than practical effects in their heyday. They are also worse done than 3D effects in their tasteful early days (like Jurassic Park).

Are you sure this is not just a case of good VX has hard to spot? And you only notice the bad/cheap examples.

It's a case of the biggest blockbusters, with the biggest budgets, like the MCU movies or Fast and Furious and such, looking like crap vfx wise. Same for movies at every level.

VFX can be more subtle (e.g. how Fincher uses it), but it's rare. The industry (which is separate from the technology) didn't mature, it enabled crappy effects to dominate.

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

#309

Post by vintermann »

qbit42 wrote: post #272

AI is destroying the economics which allowed for a sizable middle class of artists. The issue is that many are paid for their art mostly for its aesthetic rather than artistic value. This isn’t the most creatively fulfilling, but it previously allowed many artists to make a living while refining their skills, often enabling them to pursue their real creative ambitions on the side.

I'm not sure it's the same people being paid for aesthetics as for the art. In streaming, for instance, background music is extremely profitable, and a good example of "just aesthetics". But you rarely see artistic artists crank out a few tracks for the "music for studying" playlists just to pay the bills.

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

#310

Post by isqueiros »

arrrg wrote: post #300
xbmcuser wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A talented creative with a vision can now direct AI to build things that would have otherwise cost millions or been entirely impossible. I don’t understand the myopic view people have when it comes to this technology. Just three or four years ago, we saw the exact same skepticism with programming. People insisted it can't do this and it can't do that, but many of those things are possible today.

This tech isn’t steerable enough when it comes to creative output. Maybe there are some nooks and crannies where this tech can be employed and actually save time/budget. Maybe. But what does not work is to just take the output and use it. There is nowhere near enough precision there.

This is exactly my vision. I can barely get AI to output my code how I want it to after hours of planning and refining.

If you think you can be "specific" enough for AI to match your "creative vision", then maybe you're not really creative.

Post reply on HN