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

341–350 of 581 posts

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

#341

Post by Jtarii »

f6v wrote: post #315
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. All right, but that's what an average entertainment product looks like. All these new TV shows have exactly the same look and feel about them. The same actors playing the same roles over and over again. People keep comparing AI to some kind of once in a lifetime genius instead of an average person in the field.

No one is denying that AI can generate worthless slop, just how most of what humans generate is worthless slop.

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

#342

Post by chhxdjsj »

qnleigh wrote: post #322
scrollop wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I don't want jobs taken away by AI, a creative person with a vision that would usually required $1 million budget, could create such a video using AI by being very specific in what they require which would not be a " grey goo of the average of every concept " eg. "scene 32, same 2 characters from the previous scene, now dressed in the garb of Egyption middle kingdom high priests, though with cat faces, dan…

I would really love to see examples of creatives using modern AI/LLMs to make quality art, and it feels like this should be happening, but I can't think of any examples yet. Maybe there's so much low-effort slop that the good works are lost in the noise. Or maybe most artists don't use AI on principle. I would love to see examples if anyone has any. I saw a few things on r/AIVideos that I sort of liked, but I wouldn'…

The suno produced AI world cup country songs were far more exciting and viral than any of the “real” slop produced by the event

https://youtube.com/shorts/xWziEfQxkyo?si=UEzIzVeUUFXEZvCS

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

#343

Post by Jtarii »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #126
dataviz1000 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an interview, an adult actress was asked about the things she says during scenes. She said she describes what is happening literally at any moment. This is what LLM models do.

That was sort of like what The Mandalorian dialogue devolved into, with some explaining what's happening right now, and then some explaining what they're about to do. Once you notice this, it's impossible to not notice it.

Also what all of Nolan's dialogue is.

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

#344

Post by nonethewiser »

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.

>But the end product has zero artistic value

It has more artistic value than most modern art.

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

#345

Post by maxehmookau »

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 lot of the replies to this are, predicably, disappointing. For what its worth, I entirely agree.

AI is good at a lot of things, but it genuinely sucks at anything that requires real creativity. The human at the heart of a creative endeavor can't be replaced, and I hope that never changes.

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

#346

Post by nonethewiser »

calgoo wrote: post #335
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.

I think these videos are a great visual representation of what happens to your codebase of you let the agent vibe code the entire thing by itself without review and guidance! It works... but once you actually start looking at the details there are so many small cases that need fixing. Now, if you had someone with experience in editing, and they worked as a team, human + agent, then most of the small issues would be p…

>I think these videos are a great visual representation of what happens to your codebase of you let the agent vibe code the entire thing by itself without review and guidance!

I think you are right if the codebase has no tests.

Thats the thing about producing art. Its subjectively consumed. Is it good or bad? You can’t really verify that during generation.

You largely can with code.

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

#347

Post by abc42 »

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.

I'm amazed how easily people dismiss this. They used less that an hour of wall clock time and max $50 to do this.

How much would it take for me to create videos like this? I'm guessing 1-4 years calendar time practicing half an hour every day just to break my lack of talent. Immeasurable cost given how there's no way in hell I'm going to invest that kind of time for a skill I don't actually want to acquire.

Somebody who's actually competent and talented is going to make some pretty amazing stuff cheaply with something like this, and the technology is nowhere near its peak yet.

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

#348

Post by qnleigh »

esikich wrote: post #138
saaaaaam wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I know what the music is. The videos are awful. I meant that watching them is an equivalent experience to listening to music generated by Suno.

They are awful because there is no effort put into it. You're missing the point entirely with generative art. Generative art with care and intent is indiscernible from "real" art at this point. You just don't realize it.

I would love to see an example of this! Can you link anything?

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

#349

Post by Jtarii »

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.

CGI animals are still universally awful.
Post reply on HN