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

421–430 of 581 posts

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

#421

Post by 4chandaily »

esikich wrote: post #212
slopinthebag wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think because pretty much all AI generated art is slop. When artists use AI with care and intention in their works, people don’t even realize it’s AI and they don’t care. And that’s fine.

It's a new medium and I think that is really exciting to watch it develop.

Agreed. As with any new tool, there will be an adjustment period before the Overton Window catches up.

This is the current era's version of these hit classics:

   - "If you use autotune,you aren't a real singer!"
   - "Programming a drum machine isn't really writing percussion!"
   - "If you use Photoshop, you can't be a real artist."
   - "No real artist would use duct tape as a medium."
   - "Video games can't be art."
   - "Sampling is just ripping off other people's music."
Etc. The general public believed each of those things for a few years before accepting, each time, the simple truth.

Art is simply a conversation between the artist and the audience.

The medium, tools, subject, content, or even size of the audience are all just metadata which accompany the art. It will happen with these tools also.

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

#422

Post by krater23 »

abc42 wrote: post #347
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…

I've seen similaer videos in the pre AI time where someone stiches stock fotos together that fit to the lyrics. Absolute shit, and this is the advanced way to do that. It's a costly gimmic for illegal youtube uploads. The videos have no more value than that. So yes, you could do that in half an hour with your current knowledge and 0$, but it would be meaningless still images instead of meaningless video snippets. I see not much difference.

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

#423

Post by toasty228 »

abc42 wrote: post #347
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…

> I'm amazed how easily people dismiss this.

Why? What's its value? I personally wouldn't watch a video/movie/show that's entirely clanker generated, I see no point in it.

All AI fanatics can talk about is cost, productivity, money, efficiency, ... no wonder they can't understand art or even basic human emotions

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

#424

Post by toasty228 »

abc42 wrote: post #405
simmerup wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you want to make a video like that though, it’s soulless slop

Why would you think that soulless slop is the only thing this technology can make?

> can make

It doesn't matter what it "can" make when what it does make is 99.999% boomer certified slop

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

#425

Post by actionfromafar »

gilleain wrote: post #392
simianwords wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious to understand why you think drawing photorealistic eyes is different from a person beating a Guitar Hero time record. Both are pushing boundaries in mechanical dexterity. Yet one is considered art and another is not.

If I was feeling unfair I would say there is no difference! However, if a friend drew me an eye on A3 paper would I frame it? Probably yes... Others have said this better, but art is an qualitative/emotional thing, not a simply measurable quantity of an object. We tend to use the effort put in as a proxy measure for quality, but when photocopiers and 3D printers and - yes - genAI get involved, that becomes harder or…

Anything can be artistic, but some things are very hard to make artistic.

Beating Guitar Hero could artistic. I don't even know how, but I'm sure some artist could beat Guitar Hero in a way that was somehow artistic.

This terrible $100 music video which I'm not even going to watch, is surely not art. Also I'm totally sure some person is going to spend $100 with an AI and make art. It's very hard, but they day will come. The slop-to-art ratio will be astronomical.

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

#426

Post by spongebobstoes »

token cost for the $100 video was $3.25 for Sol 5.6 and $25.05 (!) for Fable 5

for the $25 video it was $4.27 (Sol) vs $16.99 (Fable)

this seems like an interesting benchmark of a complex task, even if the output has little artistic merit. the efficiency of Sol is impressive

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

#428

Post by mapt »

smoe wrote: post #410
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.

Interestingly, I enjoyed early GenAI videos much more. All those bizarre, fever dream like experiences from the lack of consistency between frames, where things would morph or pop in and out of existence. They had a certain flair and something truly distinct to the medium. Now it is mostly just this uncanny valley of bringing stock photography to life. Obviously, there will be some who use AI to great artistic effect…

Have you been following Gossip Goblin?

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

#429

Post by sanitycheck »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #388
sanitycheck wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that all serious artists seem to be extremely anti-AI, I strongly suspect that you may be wrong. I've been trying Fable for coding in the past week and while it's incrementally better than Opus sometimes, what it's churning out is still far from art - and I do think it's possible for code to be art.

If you're defining "serious artists" as some approximation of "people who have made money with their art" then it's clear that there's a conflict of interest here. Now I happen to be in the camp that believes that AI on its own isn't really capable of producing art (but like a human creating a collage, there can be art created by humans using AI... there is artistic merit in the arrangement). I still despise that AI…

I'm simply defining serious artists as people who are serious about their art, whether they're award winning filmmakers or amateur photographers. Roughly nobody out of all those people wants to use AI.

(If you want to define it as professional artists instead, then I don't even see much of a conflict of interest. Professional programmers tend to be cautiously optimistic about the new tool and are finding uses for it, why wouldn't professional artists? But, they largely do not see it that way.)

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

#430

Post by therouwboat »

simianwords wrote: post #355
spaqin wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art isn't just the screenplay, or a prompt; it's the clash between reality and the intent (whether a location or practical set constraints), the individual skill of everyone involved, costume and prop department. And it may change during production. And effort. If it's easy, it's easily reproducible and not worth that much. And novelty, that's something current models aren't capable of. That's why Jarimoquai's Virtua…

I think you are making the same mistake as everyone else with respect to art. Art has nothing to do with _mechanical_ difficulty. I see this misconception all the time. Examples - Kumail Nanjiani roided up for his next movie. This has mechanical difficulty, sure. But what does it add to the artistic element? - Dream Theatre guitarists play olympics with their guitar and play solo's that are mechanically impossible fo…

I don't think that was fair comparison, earlier comment was that creative person can make million dollar art without having million dollar budget, then again creative person can splash paint on canvas while being dead drunk and make most valuable painting.

Most people find it more impressive if you learn to play Dream theater song on guitar than if you program it in daw.

Post reply on HN