Explainer videos are dark patterns that replaced written howto documents in order to serve ads. Not seeing them pop up any more in search results is one of the few positive outcomes of Google switching to AI-first search results.
kakugawa 14 hours ago [-]
Here are a couple examples from r/ClaudeAI:
Made entirely with Opus 5.5 + $3.21 of OpenRouter API usageClaude Code Workflow
Jaw literally dropped. I ran the prompt from the "Made entirely with Opus 5.5" post on my own project. Here's what Claude Code made on its own for about $4.Claude Code Workflow
That is on an entirely different level! Good direction, a storyline… the OP’s are simple slides with poor copywriting, something models could do a year ago.
gpt5 42 minutes ago [-]
Also - notably - the prompt was incredibly under specified, yet the result was tasteful and well thought out.
How far away are we from “build a startup that generates $1M MRR, my openrouter key is in my .env”?
owebmaster 38 minutes ago [-]
You missed the "make no mistake".
j1elo 1 hours ago [-]
Why these examples start from a request for a JavaScript animation?
What is it that makes it "better" versus simply asking for an animated video? Is it the ability to later do some adjustments programmatically?
alansaber 13 hours ago [-]
Recent models have been a big step up on graphics generation. Not exactly sure why, it would be neat if they would release any quantity of technical blogs.
baq 4 hours ago [-]
RL fried on pelicans in various situations.
ryeights 6 hours ago [-]
Emergent capabilities, bitter lesson, increasing general intelligence, etc
miki123211 3 hours ago [-]
Over a year and a half after DeepSeek, it feels like we're slowly saturating what RLVR can do, and are back to RLHF instead.
Fable was a huge leap in terms of model persistence and raw intelligence, but it still had terrible taste for human writing and code architecture. It would constantly keep making decisions which would achieve the desired objective (and make the code correct), but would bite you n years from now, and n years from now isn't RLVR checkable.
Opus 5.5 has a very different "feel" than anything else I've seen in this generation, though GPT-6 does seem to be moving in a similar direction. They have finally solved the writing part, and architectural taste also seems to have improved significantly.
I did a review of some GPT 6 Sol's code with Opus 5.5 yesterday, and it went "the code is correct, but there's a bunch of things here that could be simplified, and the split of responsibilities doesn't follow your established architectural layers" (which was true and exactly what I've noticed myself when reading the diff). I don't think I've ever seen a model do this before and actually be on-point.
pbk1 12 hours ago [-]
FWIW the examples in OP were generated by image models, not Claude - Claude just orchestrated the other models via OpenRouter
e12e 11 hours ago [-]
Did you get the raw js artifacts to continue working, or making "sequels" - or just the video file?
Does the js stuff render real-time?
Did you get script/dialog and voice settings (again, for making other films in same series/theme) - or just the rendered audio?
prathje 4 hours ago [-]
Worth adding: the $3.21 were for nanobanana2 probably generating the assets.
mannanj 13 hours ago [-]
This is so different from the OP's site. This is so much better, trying it out now.
hexapus 8 hours ago [-]
AI doing things that creative people do makes me sad. Stole everyone's art to regurgitate it on command to billionaires richer, and save businesses the expensive of hiring someone with actual talent to do it.
I don't care how "good" the graphics become - it will always just be slop. This isn't the part of our lives we should be trying to replace with technology.
Gareth321 3 hours ago [-]
You see this as making animators obsolete. I see this as giving everyone the ability to make professional looking videos for their products, services, events, and websites. Automation has taken many jobs over the years, but it has also given us much cheaper and better products and services. I do not lament progress, but I think we should do a better job of distributing the benefits of this progress.
5 minutes ago [-]
ben_w 2 hours ago [-]
"Professional looking" is a moving window, has been for a long time.
Right now, looking like an AI did it (even if it was actually a human) is a sign of being un-professional. To a limited degree, one can prompt an AI better and get something that doesn't look as cliché as the default settings, but even then there's often someone who can spot a tell. "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time" applies here.
Art is at least two different things, for at least two different groups: nice to look at etc. is one of them; the human equivalent of a peacock's tail (i.e. the effort is the point and cheating is worse than having nothing) is the other.
Gareth321 4 minutes ago [-]
I think there will always be a market for human-made things, but this comes with a premium and not everyone can afford it.
koe123 5 hours ago [-]
In the end, the market decides. If a colleague sends me an LLM message I dont really want to read it. I also wouldnt watch an LLM video if I knew. So, for now, human intentionality seems to be worth a price to some so thats a reason to stay optimistic.
baq 4 hours ago [-]
You’ll have your artisanal math proof and hand-made software certifications in due course, no worries.
avereveard 5 hours ago [-]
entertainment hasn't consumed art in a while most of it is mass produced at minimum cost and zero artistic freedom. some sparingly rare project that could be called art remains, driven by passion of the craft, and these aren't going away
bananaflag 6 hours ago [-]
How would you propose to build an intelligent being which would be incapable of doing this sort of thing?
I mean, ever since AI was a research program, it was assumed it will some day achieve its goal -- in particular, make computers be creative.
AltruisticGapHN 10 minutes ago [-]
I'm really confused about Claude in relation to image gen and videos.
Few times I asked Claude to edit a photo it says it can't, or it produced soemthing awful by running some python library.
I don't get it. Can Claude do any image gen at all? Does it just delegate tasks to other tools to make the video or can it actually produce video?
Aldipower 3 hours ago [-]
This is the next level of PowerPoint presentations.
I just had a look at the example videos. Really, what is gained here?
Back in the days, when I made websites or home pages for clients, my first question was: "What's your message you want to tell with your website?" Sometimes the client couldn't answer this, because he simply wanted a website for the sake of having a website. But a website without a message is meaningless more or less.
jeroenhd 37 minutes ago [-]
Like with so many facets of the AI industry, I can't think of anything other than ads and spam.
That said, there was an entire industry out there cranking out these """fun""" explainer videos, so there must be some market for it out there.
PhilippGille 26 minutes ago [-]
Websites can just present information.
When I visit a website, I'm usually looking for information and not for a message.
igleria 43 minutes ago [-]
Thanks for writing this, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills otherwise.
neals 14 hours ago [-]
Like many of us, I've been hobbying away on some SaaS that wraps an LLM. But I often worry, isn't this just adding buttons to an LLM call? What's the real value here? Quick money grab and wait for copies? Or do my 20 years of saas and business development actually make my SaaS better then others?
inerte 13 hours ago [-]
I've been struggling with that.
I built https://gallotails.com/ because I am a cocktail enthusiast. First commit, March 6th 2019. One of the features I am proud is which cocktails you can build based on your ingredients, and I was smart, the bar ignores garnishes and can suggest cocktails you're one ingredient away. But you have to add the ingredients. And interpret the bar screen.
Clicked the microphone icon and rambled for a few seconds (could have just taken a picture too I guess). Nudged ChatGPT to only give me simple cocktails I can stir instead of using a mixer. Said I could buy a lime, sure. Then asked how to keep the ginger beer fresh.
There is NO WAY I can code all of that in my little gallotails.com - a single chat window has entirely replaced my site. And that's my pet little project I do it on weekends, mostly to keep my tech skills sharp. I can only imagine what the biggest cocktails website, actual companies, are going / will go through once more and more people just realize the chat tab is enough. And I am not talking about purely content, ChatGPT can do everything my site does, and more, into any direction, in an instant.
Which left me with the question, then what should my site be? Community? To be taken over by agents?
Currently munching on what sites like mine should do, and what they should be.
enjoylife 13 hours ago [-]
I agree there will always be a need for community. Human connections. Folks experiencing the tastes, smells, etc.
Eg from your share, the model output “I prefer it Scotch-heavy rather than 50/50 because otherwise it gets very sweet.”
It’s basically cribbed this from someone; it literally can’t taste.
The frontier labs are not yet able to do rlvr over mixology/meatspace. So maybe think on how to capitalize on that.
ryeights 6 hours ago [-]
Books, writing, comments, etc on cocktails are certainly in the training set. The model doesn’t need a sensation of taste in order to understand what humans enjoy. RLVR specifically on cocktails is not needed as the general intelligence of the models increases
svieira 4 hours ago [-]
"I prefer" was the bit that the parent was pointing to that wasn't true. There isn't a person-to-person connection being made here. Though there is the fascamile of one.
solarkraft 13 hours ago [-]
Then maybe the need for your site is gone. That’s a good thing in the sense that the problem is solved. If your goal is “do something in the cocktail space” (which is also roughly the companies’ goal I would say), indeed you should do what the AI can’t, which I’d say is be human touch. An AI can’t give your opinion or view.
inerte 13 hours ago [-]
> Then maybe the need for your site is gone.
Oh yeah, and I am not mourning or anything like that. And I do want the human touch, because AI can't. But humans, at least over the internet, can send their agents, or companies can run agents and I won't know from my site if it's an actual human, or some AI fabricated interaction (can't even trust an image it uploads).
When AI first showed up a few years ago, I thought about opening an actual physical cocktail bar. Hypothesizing humans will be tired after a long day of their agents talking to other agents, they would crave for actual humans. I would ban electronics inside - no distractions. Maybe one day I will go for that...
baq 4 hours ago [-]
Nice idea in theory, but in practice people are either completely swamped with work now that all the work is doing itself or they’re out of work and have zero disposable income to go to the bar.
This is not sustainable in the long term, but irrational longer than solvent yadda yadda.
toasty228 13 hours ago [-]
I personally am more interested about personal opinions about things like cocktails rather than whatever statistically average cocktail the matrices of chatgpt come up with.
Chatgpt would shit on my great grandma's waffle recipe but it's the one I'll keep making till the day I die.
XorNot 3 hours ago [-]
I was saying this morning that LLMs have given Star Trek the last laugh.
My software development process feels exactly like every debugging session in the holodeck that seemed terribly unrealistic to me.
I'm in SRE so systems reasoning is something of the value. But me writing code or even configuring stuff? That's dead. It is a total waste of time - Claude can do it better, faster and it works.
talloaktrees 14 hours ago [-]
Many of us have the exact same thought process. Related: I have heard indie game developers have stopped the traditional practice of updating a dev log as a form of marketing and community building because people will point their LLm at it and create your own game before you do
klodolph 14 hours ago [-]
I have some strong feelings about this particular story (people point LLMs at your devlog)…
- Video devlogs were long a shitty way to make a community (I can explain this one in more detail, but in short, the tradeoff between opportunity cost and video quality is a Pareto curve that is bad at all points on the curve, if your goals include both “make game” and “build community for players with devlogs”, the way out is to drop one of those two requirements, either “make YouTube/Twitch/TikTok channel” replaces “make game”, or you build some other audience for your devlogs)
- Good devlogs don’t have that level of detail, to let people easily recreate games
- Most games can’t easily be replicated by LLMs, in short, the people who are good at steering LLMs like that are making their own games.
This is not the first time I heard this story. Sometimes it comes with the lamentation “back in the day people could build communities with devlogs” and no, that was generally not a good way to build communities. It was mostly good streams from YouTubers who were making the game in order to make YouTube content or it was mediocre streams from random devs. Throw in a few people who are famous game devs who choose to stream and get a big audience because they already have a community.
jayd16 13 hours ago [-]
It doesn't need to recreate your game. It can still muddy your marketing and redden the ocean. Especially if someone is in the business of trying to front run an indie game, they don't need to be any where close to a full or good game to attempt to steal any mindshare your project had.
klodolph 12 hours ago [-]
Is this happening at any significant rate?
AFAICT this is a fear that some game developers have, that someone will steal their game and run with it, and the stories told are more repeated based on this shared fear than based on realistic scenarios. People repeat it because it’s a good story.
And yes, I’m aware of some situations like 0x10c and the like.
jayd16 11 hours ago [-]
The appstores are full of knockoffs and even resubmitted decompiles. I certainly wouldn't put it past the scammers.
More specifically to AI... A blog on a nice website is no longer a signal for quality so there's just no point in devs investing in that.
ASalazarMX 11 hours ago [-]
I frequent a couple of game development communities, and it's kind of hilarious that some people won't even talk about their general game concept for fear that others will steal their idea. Like wow, you're making another rogue deck-builder, I have to steal that!
The idea is not valuable, ideas are a dime a dozen. The actual value is in your implementation.
sashank_1509 10 hours ago [-]
Is that true anymore, LLM will implement everything for you, idea actually matters more now
ben_w 1 hours ago [-]
If you point an LLM at an idea, you'll get a "lossy JPEG" version of that idea.
It requires discernment, taste, on the part of the user to be able to point the LLM at the weird parts that look wrong.
Even with that, the LLM can only fix most of, not all of, those rough edges.
sampullman 3 hours ago [-]
It's still true for now. AI can't yet make a game with complex mechanics feel good to a human, although it can speed up a lot of the implementation.
setr 7 hours ago [-]
LLMs will generate. Taste continues to dictate what to keep/discard. (Note that taste can get you to good, but good won’t get you to money on its own)
jayd16 6 hours ago [-]
This is fantasy and if it was true the idea would be public when the product was released.
There's no moat in an idea either so I guess it's down to marketing budget.
11 hours ago [-]
zactato 13 hours ago [-]
I've been vibe coding a game on the side.
It really makes me appreciate how important good game design is. Claude is doing a fine job coding everything I describe, but it doesn't really understand fun, so I need to.
(It's not a great game)
hokapo 2 hours ago [-]
This is my experience too. I think people with no gamedev experience widely underestimate the challenge of good game design and the need for iteration with real people testing the game. In a similar way that an inexperienced game developer overestimates their skill to assess the fun and all the small details that matter, and will get demolished when it's first playtested by other people.
Retr0id 14 hours ago [-]
> Good devlogs don’t have that level of detail, to let people easily recreate games
The whole problem with LLMs is that you don't need the detail.
JDups 13 hours ago [-]
Details have a huge impact on how fun a game is. So far the vibeslop games I've seen look about as fun as crappy unity assets flips or mobile games. every so often the Instagram algo will show me some post a long the lines of "The game industry is finished!" and there is no way anyone can seriously looks at the games in those posts and say they look fun to play.
And someone trying to vibe copy another person's game is definitely the type who has no idea of value to add. So many of the slop games the whole concepts are so generic that they definitely just asked chatgpt for everything.
In the modding scenes for some games I play I've seen vibe coded mods where the gameplay additions make no sense and have no sense of balance or fun, with these completely new to the community devs having ko-fi links set up from the start.
klodolph 13 hours ago [-]
What I think of is all the HD remasters out there which look disastrously worse than the original, at least in my eyes. Why does this happen? Are the best artists working on new games instead? Are remasters pushed out with less care, shorter schedules, and less budget? Maybe some combination… and maybe there are some parallels with quick, mostly unsupervised LLM copies of a game.
Retr0id 12 hours ago [-]
If someone makes a cheap copy of my unreleased game and it's bad, that's also bad for me, I think.
JDups 11 hours ago [-]
I think the much bigger problem is that these people are usually trying to do some "passive income" play, drop-shipping type crap. And will soon be spamming what would be the usual discovery mechanisms with slop. It's happening on youtube for educational type videos.
klodolph 13 hours ago [-]
Ok, so let’s get some data points. Are there games being recreated from devlogs? I’d like to see what the recreations look like.
palmotea 13 hours ago [-]
> Ok, so let’s get some data points. Are there games being recreated from devlogs? I’d like to see what the recreations look like.
An LLM "recreation" doesn't have to be complete or very good. It just has to steal enough thunder to be profitable.
klodolph 13 hours ago [-]
From what I’ve seen, most of the flood of LLM-created games aren’t profitable, just like most of the games people make in devlogs. There’s very little thunder to be stolen in the first place.
palmotea 13 hours ago [-]
> From what I’ve seen, most of the flood of LLM-created games aren’t profitable
It's it possible for an LLM-created game to be profitable but "unsuccessful?"
For instance, if (on average) if it costs $100 in tokens and time to make a crappy LLM-game clone, but you can clear $200 in sales per game on average, you're ahead.
And the economics of slop mean there are a lot of people in 3rd world countries who will make all that effort for a $100 payout (or less).
klodolph 13 hours ago [-]
I’m sure somebody out there is pointing an LLM at things and getting a $200 average payout or better on $100 in tokens, but if your game is getting copied for $100 in tokens, I’m not sold on the idea that you were going to make money in the first place.
palmotea 13 hours ago [-]
> but if your game is getting copied for $100 in tokens
My point is they don't actually have to do a good job, they need to make a pile of shit that looks just good enough to trick a few people into buying it.
klodolph 12 hours ago [-]
Ok, in order to make money? Let people make some money making shitty copies of my game. I think there are roughly two scenarios here.
Scenario one: they’re competing with my game and stealing my thunder. In this scenario my game wasn’t very good to begin with.
Scenario two: we’re going after different customers. They get the customers who want a cheaper game, I’m getting the customers who want a better game.
2001zhaozhao 14 hours ago [-]
> indie game developers have stopped the traditional practice of updating a dev log as a form of marketing and community building because people will point their LLm at it and create your own game before you do
And that's why we can't have good things...
(This is just gonna keep happening more and more until eventually we'll need something like a patent system for ideas)
DaSHacka 13 hours ago [-]
>a patent system for ideas)
So, a patent?
f33d5173 12 hours ago [-]
> Like many of us, I've been hobbying away on some SaaS that wraps an LLM. But I often worry, isn't this just adding buttons to an LLM call?
> That's why I created isitsaas.io: your platform for determining whether your llm wrapper has product potential, or whether people would rather just use claude directly instead. Simply pop in your business idea, and our award winning, proprietary technology will ask claude if you can make money off of it.
> Trial memberships start at $10/month
solarkraft 13 hours ago [-]
Here’s an easy proxy: Did you feel the need to build it because nothing to your liking existed? Did it take some effort to build? Do others feel the need to use your thing for those reasons?
Then it’s sufficiently non-obvious. I believe there’s still a pretty big field of things that fall into this category. Making proper things is a lot more than writing some code.
resonious 3 hours ago [-]
I suspect publishing an MCP server that provides access to an interesting resource is a better move.
You can also host a chat interface that connects to said MCP server as a convenience. But serious users probably already have their own inference and it's already hooked into other resources as well.
ash_091 14 hours ago [-]
I don't think "is my SaaS better than others" is the important question, instead "is SaaS going to be valuable in a cheap bespoke software future".
I've been playing with an LLM backed reference checker for my partner who is a lecturer. For each reference in some work she's marking an agent is dispatched to read the referenced source and check that the reference is correct / accurate / not hallucinated.
It's useful to her, but it feels like it would be a waste of effort to turn into a product, because pasting the same document into Claude/ChatGPT with a prompt like "download and read each reference etc" would work pretty much just as well.
I had similar concerns about an AI backed training generation company I interviewed with. I asked how they saw themselves competing with increasingly capable generic harnesses. I don't recall exactly what they said but the impression I got was they were so focused on competing with the big LMS players that they hadn't really considered it.
piva00 14 hours ago [-]
I believe it completely depends on your values and perspective, as a poor analogy: when mobile apps were a novelty a bunch of them were just that, novelties, the beer drinking app, the flicking a Zippo-esque app, and many more that hadn't much functionality, were more a tech demo, cool toys, etc.
If you don't care so much about adding something significant to the world, and your LLM-buttons-wrapper is a novelty, chug along and see where it goes if you're having fun. Looking for what value mean at this moment is a much harder effort, and probably a luck-based endeavour.
I don't have fun creating LLM-wrappers or at least haven't thought of a fun idea for it that could be even a fun novelty to work on so personally I'm not doing it but I'm using LLMs for other fun stuff that required much more of my free time before.
BoorishBears 13 hours ago [-]
I used to think like this, but eventually I realized it's mostly just a way to pat yourself on the back. And ironically, I rarely saw people doing significant things waste energy talking like that, since there's no benefit in the exercise.
Very few things can't be reduced to insignificance. MacOS was just cribbing PARC, Facebook is just a glorified PHP forum, Dropbox is just SFTP, etc. etc.
Even in deep-tech, Zipline is just wrapping from deeper-tech (batteries motors etc), GLP-1s were a VA throwaway that dusted off, etc. etc.
LLM wrapper doesn't mean anything, it's an implementation detail. Besides being an LLM wrapper what is a given thing?
The beer app wasn't just a beer app, it was the intersection of the first time accelerometers were doing something that the average consumer could interact with in their pocket, the first time there was something to spend money on for your phone besides a wallpaper, a ton of things.
If anything now when something seems trivial or like a toy, but it has a lot of traction, I want to spend energy figuring out why is it more meaningful than it appears.
piva00 44 minutes ago [-]
> I used to think like this, but eventually I realized it's mostly just a way to pat yourself on the back. And ironically, I rarely saw people doing significant things waste energy talking like that, since there's no benefit in the exercise.
I don't get what exactly you are talking about as a reply to my comment, what exercise exactly? Deciding if something is worth spending time if you're having fun with it?
> If anything now when something seems trivial or like a toy, but it has a lot of traction, I want to spend energy figuring out why is it more meaningful than it appears.
Sure, if you're having fun (and in fun I include a sense of accomplishment, curiosity, whatever tickles you) with that, go for it.
It's a strangely arrogant reply to my comment, perhaps you read something into it that I didn't say and replied to that?
5 hours ago [-]
danielmarkbruce 9 hours ago [-]
Making the edge cases work, and lowering the cost of running it via good model choice, context management etc is in some cases really hard. That's valuable in a decent number of cases. I have a system that does something in financial markets - making sure it doesn't screw up, and doesn't cost a fortune to run, is the entire thing for me.
throwaway219450 14 hours ago [-]
Typically maintenance, reliability, support and liability; nothing new in SaaS land. Lots of companies have the money to hand-roll things that are provided by some external SaaS but would much rather it was someone else’s problem.
Also for creatives, some sort of aesthetic control? Most of the examples on this page look like templates you’d see in an office suite that appear swish, but are ultimately bland.
redm 14 hours ago [-]
Even if I could answer your question (which I can't), things change so fast right now that it might not be valid for long. All you can do is be willing to rapidly adapt and stay focused on where your product adds value.
perching_aix 2 hours ago [-]
Doesn't need to have technical meat to it, conditionally ever really needed to per se, as long as it has a design / context moat. The thing is that designs are now trivial to copy. So what remains is who provides a more reliable service, supporting and continuing that design, and how well connected the person selling the thing is, to surface it first and to the right audience.
Onavo 12 hours ago [-]
You are thinking from the point of view of an engineer, and risk falling into the rsync dropbox fallacy.
Start from thinking about product value add, and user behaviors first.
j45 14 hours ago [-]
It's not always a call that wraps an llm.
The LLM only does average returns from average inputs.
nater5000 13 hours ago [-]
>Or do my 20 years of saas and business development actually make my SaaS better then others?
Nope. If all your doing is prompting an agent to build stuff (especially if what it is building is based on LLMs), then you might as well take it back to the whiteboard and rethink how you're spending your time/tokens.
kypro 14 hours ago [-]
You could build something really useful, but if I can replicate 95% of that in a weekend with Claude I'm obviously not going to pay you for it.
Some SaaS products have network effects, but that doesn't appy to new software.
Starting a SaaS business in 2026 seems a bit silly to me. Not saying people won't make money, but you'd have to be pretty lucky.
toasty228 13 hours ago [-]
You'd be surprised how much money companies throw at very simple products, I'm working for a company making 100k mrr and was virtually entirely vibe coded by one dev until very recently
jorblumesea 14 hours ago [-]
this is why people have been suggesting an AI bubble, outside of the frontier model labs
armchairhacker 3 hours ago [-]
These presentations, like most LLM output, look good but aren’t very informative. The Jev one kept repeating the same point (Jev is by TypeSafe AI, Jev is faster and cheaper) - I bet I could condense it into like 4 slides. The linear one wasn’t entirely clear: it seems you create issues and assign them to agents, and create gantt charts / timelines? Although https://linear.app isn’t much clearer.
But: I think as LLMs fully generate more and more complicated things, we’ll start discovering ways to make them generate with good user control.
preommr 14 hours ago [-]
These aren't even that good in comparison to the stuff being posted on Reddit and twitter/X.
Some of the stuff I've seen is mindblowingly impressive in how they've captured quality creative decisions, and how the models can reason about visually appealing designs.
It understands things like continuity, themes, facial expressions, cultural memes/references, symbolism, etc. And it generates things using a lot of multi-modal behavior by using 3d, images, etc.
Some really incredibly impressive stuff.
s-macke 13 hours ago [-]
Agreed. Just yesterday, I recreated the XKCD comic “A Bunch of Rocks” (https://xkcd.com/505/) as a video. It took me about five hours, using ElevenLabs for the audio and a step-by-step process involving brainstorming, planning, storyboarding, and so on. Opus 5.5 has become remarkably capable.
I had already seen the comic, but watching the video reminded me of "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov [1]:
> After all, I undertook to tell several trillion years of human history in the space of a short story and I leave it to you as to how well I succeeded. I also undertook another task, but I won't tell you what that was lest l spoil the story for you.
Interesting. Bit odd that the head doesn't occlude the background (it's a circle, not a disk), and not sure about the title font.
The drawing/animation style feels suitably off from xkcd - more naive stick figure, than what xkcd looks like?
Some speed/timing issues with the walk cycles.
For all that - mind-blowing that it's generated so quickly.
s-macke 6 hours ago [-]
Thanks. I’ll pass the feedback on to Opus 5.5 :-)
mh- 12 hours ago [-]
Wow, very cool. Thanks for sharing.
camkego 12 hours ago [-]
This is great! Thank you!
adamgordonbell 10 hours ago [-]
Dude, so well done.
Say more about the process and / or drop some link pointers.
s-macke 6 hours ago [-]
There isn’t that much to say. Start with an empty directory, put the XKCD image in it, add your ElevenLabs API key, and set up a Python virtual environment. Install ffmpeg.
Then start Claude. From that point on, it’s mostly prompting and evaluating the results. Like any good engineer, you shouldn’t simply start with “Create a video from this comic.” Instead, take a step-by-step approach: discuss the visual style, animations, ask for audio examples, create a script, and then develop a storyboard (ask for a .html document).
The important part is to break the whole generation process down into small, manageable steps. I also used the brainstorming skill from Superpowers for the discussions. It makes the whole process much easier when the AI asks the questions and I just have to answer them.
The result is 4500 line python code generated by Opus 5.5 and a lot of video and audio files.
spankalee 14 hours ago [-]
I won't open Twitter, but where on Reddit is this stuff posted?
mmahemoff 13 hours ago [-]
r/ClaudeAI, r/ClaudeCode, r/claude
Almondsetat 13 hours ago [-]
These explainer videos are garbage, whether done by humans or not. Just like those crappy Netflix "documentaries". Don't get me wrong, it's impressive, but it's just a more automated way of outputting low effort, low quality content
sidrag22 11 hours ago [-]
It is kinda funny I am always interested in Anthropic's new releases, but i have a great distaste for their actual release posts/videos. They LOVE these stupid style videos for any feature they release, their text posts are usually just a ton of nonsense that i dont wanna read, and now there is this huge "revelation" that their models can pump this annoying format out.
I say Bummer if more people adopt this style, its gonna become less and less authentic feeling as the months go on now.
v64 7 hours ago [-]
Not a comment on this link in particular, but just a general observation from my experience.
One should be skeptical of the demos they initially see at model release, as there have been instances of some being called out as AI generated video or work that took days and millions of tokens and not a one shot as claimed.
The first few days Astra was out, I attempted to reproduce a few of the demos I saw on twitter, and it was clear Astra had a distinctive style and certain limitations when working in short sessions with tools like Blender that could distinguish genuine demos from bs for retweets.
People putting out these demos should share their sessions to really show what was going on, and I invite people to test models and try to replicate what they see and draw their own conclusions.
ollipal 2 hours ago [-]
I think Opus 5.5 works even better with recording tutorial videos of your real application / ui, using agent written playwright e2e tests. I’ve been working on this workflow for couple of months and built a service around it (screenci.com), so I have some hands-on experience with it.
thangalin 11 hours ago [-]
I'm looking to put together a tutorial discussing fundamentals of Blues and Swing partner dancing. I have the raw source material. I'd like to change the background, change the attire of instructors (myself and a friend), and fix up other issues (dead space, umms, and other gaffs). The footage is about 22 minutes, and can be split into 5 different segments of about 3 - 4 minutes each.
I'm running Arch Linux and would rather not install DaVinci Resolve, but Blender would be fine for the non-linear video editor.
My plan is to use ChatCut to trim and split into the different sections. After I have the five segments, what would you suggest for swapping the background (environment) and attire? There are two simultaneous camera shots (front and side) that I'd like to stitch together as well.
Any suggestions? (Paying someone a couple of hundred $CAD to take this task off my plate would also work.)
prathje 4 hours ago [-]
I have been working hard to enable models creating nice explainers for videozero.ai which is based on Motion Canvas.
Above all, the model’s sense of what feels and what looks good is the most important. So many times the models have missed clearly wrong layouts etc. I guess it just shows the limitations of LLMs when they should generate something they have not been trained on?
If opus 5.5 is now better capable of that, that would be brilliant!
cush 11 hours ago [-]
Kind of clever. Not sure what this has to do with Opus 5.5 though. Creating an html presentation with transition animations has been a thing since Opus 4.6 - Recording it with playwright/ffmpeg doesn't seem like a model thing.
cryptozeus 14 hours ago [-]
My friend..definition of “good” is very relative. These are just flashy slide decks
redhale 13 hours ago [-]
HN never fails to be disappointed.
prathje 4 hours ago [-]
We have had libraries for animation like Remotion and Motion Canvas for some time. It feels like libraries are becoming worth less and less as agents become more capable. Not sure how I feel about that…
yube01 2 hours ago [-]
i think opus is really good at writing code for explainer i think sonnet is better
esotericsean 7 hours ago [-]
I work for a company doing marketing (I make ads). Essentially I've trained my OpenClaw machine to know everything it needs about the company, know what will perform best, and then it writes a script, creates an avatar, generates videos, b-roll, edits them together with captions and CTA end card. And they've performed better than when I was doing it all manually. Pretty crazy.
I've been experimenting with AI video generation beyond raw video gen for some time now. Opus 4.5 was the first tool I tried last year, and it was okay...
Fast forward a few months, and Opus 5.5 is now running my entire video production pipeline. This model is leaps and bounds ahead of the previous model.
I can generate a complete 5-minute explainer video on my MacBook Air M4 in about five minutes from a single prompt, using the Gemini TTS API and MiniMax H3 Max for b-roll. It creates thumbnails and titles, handles the entire process, and automatically uploads the result via the YouTube API—all powered by a Claude Code plugin. (youtube.com/@ctrlaltexplain for those interested).
e12e 10 hours ago [-]
I was curious - not too impressed about what it did for Pornhub - but it turned into a kind of deconstruction of launch video - or banal parody of sorts?:
we have done something similar at puppydog.io but more targeted towards corporate marketing videos. our experience working with customers is the same 80-20 rule.
For 80% AI does the work in seconds and 20% is manual work in minutes to get exactly what they want.
Tsarp 9 hours ago [-]
Lot of these demos tend to squeeze in as many animations and transitions. Its usually hard to take away anything from the video at the end.
I wish more people optimized for learning than "how fancy can i make it look"
ceroxylon 14 hours ago [-]
Not sure if it is working for others, but if I point it at any of my domains I get "The model provider rejected the request".
sznio 13 hours ago [-]
All of these already have a similar vibe and will become commonly recognised in a few weeks time, making them not good.
patriciobcs 13 hours ago [-]
I tried it, but I can't see the video. The model just outputs this in the chat:
/root/workspace/renderer/out/local.mp4
No way to download or watch it in the webapp of opencomputer. No instructions on what to do? Do I need to run it locally? It seems it did use usage.
spicypixel 12 hours ago [-]
Ask Claude for instructions to play the video.
motoxpro 8 hours ago [-]
Ah remember the good old days when models couldn't do images with text because it couldn't spell or letter would be borked?
syrusakbary 13 hours ago [-]
Indeed, it's really great.
It does the smartest thing of all: it creates an HTML page and uses raw JS timed animations to make it work. Then it records it with ffmpeg and saves the output as the final video.
About 6 months ago I spent 12 hours creating a video for our Edge.js [1] announcement that, in the end... people were not very inspired by (to say the least). See the video here [2].
Then, about a month ago, I spent 6 hours creating a video for our Wasmer SDK announcement. It was better, but still didn't go as viral as I wanted [3]. I always thought we would need a big budget to do them.
But then, yesterday I tried Opus 5.5... and man, I'm impressed. The video was one-shotted with this prompt:
Make a modern slick and punchy video for this announcement:
[content of the blogpost in markdown]
I believe it captures each of the frames as png and then ffmpeg puts them together as a video. Although someone from Anthropic may be able to explain this better
javhu 13 hours ago [-]
Building civ.game with Opus. Its fully procedural, threejs plus wasm.
What a time to be alive.
14 hours ago [-]
monneyboi 14 hours ago [-]
I wonder what the future is of SaaS in a world where everybody can vibe up what they need on demand.
cryptozeus 14 hours ago [-]
Yeh try that. Not that simple at all, this is why servicenow and sales force are just killing it
toasty228 13 hours ago [-]
Looking at the absolute dog shit Ai menus and posters I see everywhere I can guarantee you a good 70% of the population is physically unable to produce good things no matter the tools they have access to. They can't even be bothered to add "make it look good" to their prompt
hypfer 14 hours ago [-]
Arguably, this type of content was already slop before the AI times, so nothing of value was lost.
hightrix 14 hours ago [-]
Right. My first question when I see this type of video is asking for a text write up. What tool is used to create these videos doesn’t change that.
dalemhurley 13 hours ago [-]
I had Sol 5.6 about a month ago populated a test account, take screen shots, write a script, used ElevenLabs TTS, with Remotion. It did an amazing job.
minimaxir 14 hours ago [-]
One important difference between animations/videos generated by Opus 5.5 and the stereotypical AI slop videos is that Opus 5.5 is not a video generation model: it generates and iterates the code and renders it, and there are various ways for it to do so.
This one's been stuck in my head since yesterday. I just keep thinking about how long this woulda taken in After Effects. So I was experimenting with having Opus 5.5 make these kinda animations in javascript and realized I can get it to export a JSX script for AE. So I can have it take the first swing, then bring it into the tool I actually use.
e12e 11 hours ago [-]
Curious about the song - the mp3 in the repo is wildly different from the linked YouTube recording?
shouryamaanjain 8 hours ago [-]
for some reason, claude models are extremely bad at manim, including opus 5.5 (surprisingly gemini is very good at it)
LoganDark 7 hours ago [-]
I tried Gemini (3.1 Pro) for creative writing a couple days ago and was absolutely blown away. I have not seen one this good since ChatGPT's initial launch day, before the rounds of lobotomization and RLHF.
I am not super sure what makes it so good, but it seems like it's a good option to try if you have access and want to see how the frontier models are doing.
Maybe this is why Apple chose that family to help train Siri AI. (Siri AI is not a fine-tuned Gemini)
It produced a video about an AI startup with the vague goal of centralizing data.
moralestapia 14 hours ago [-]
Wow, this is phenomenal. Thanks for sharing.
If you're the author congrats, great work!
abroszka33 14 hours ago [-]
Yeah, and other models as well. YouTube is now full of AI explainer slop videos.
lern_too_spel 14 hours ago [-]
This is just taking an existing presentation slides skill and generating a video out of it. There are no drawings and animations that explain the actual concepts.
spwa4 14 hours ago [-]
Can I just say "oh dear god no ..."
(not that they were great before, but ...)
amelius 13 hours ago [-]
> Today's free videos are all used up. Deploy the agent to your own OpenComputer account and it runs without limits.
So predictable.
nojvek 10 hours ago [-]
Slop. How is this good?
Thorentis 13 hours ago [-]
I suppose we should've seen this coming (and many did) in the 80s. This is the late stage of digital and computerised media. We conned ourselves for a few decades into thinking this was a new medium for art or a new frontier of human communication, but in reality we were just training a simulacrum of reality, devoid of meaning or intent.
RomanPushkin 8 hours ago [-]
no it's not
NeoByte 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
hizlikovboy27 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jodapogo 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
hizlikovboy27 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
wuliwong 14 hours ago [-]
I don't want to be a hater but I made this a while ago and I honestly think the videos are a good bit nicer than what you are creating with Opus 5.5. https://mnfst.video/
Rendered at 11:12:02 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Made entirely with Opus 5.5 + $3.21 of OpenRouter API usageClaude Code Workflow
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wogab3/
Jaw literally dropped. I ran the prompt from the "Made entirely with Opus 5.5" post on my own project. Here's what Claude Code made on its own for about $4.Claude Code Workflow
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wovwao/
How far away are we from “build a startup that generates $1M MRR, my openrouter key is in my .env”?
What is it that makes it "better" versus simply asking for an animated video? Is it the ability to later do some adjustments programmatically?
Fable was a huge leap in terms of model persistence and raw intelligence, but it still had terrible taste for human writing and code architecture. It would constantly keep making decisions which would achieve the desired objective (and make the code correct), but would bite you n years from now, and n years from now isn't RLVR checkable.
Opus 5.5 has a very different "feel" than anything else I've seen in this generation, though GPT-6 does seem to be moving in a similar direction. They have finally solved the writing part, and architectural taste also seems to have improved significantly.
I did a review of some GPT 6 Sol's code with Opus 5.5 yesterday, and it went "the code is correct, but there's a bunch of things here that could be simplified, and the split of responsibilities doesn't follow your established architectural layers" (which was true and exactly what I've noticed myself when reading the diff). I don't think I've ever seen a model do this before and actually be on-point.
Does the js stuff render real-time?
Did you get script/dialog and voice settings (again, for making other films in same series/theme) - or just the rendered audio?
I don't care how "good" the graphics become - it will always just be slop. This isn't the part of our lives we should be trying to replace with technology.
Right now, looking like an AI did it (even if it was actually a human) is a sign of being un-professional. To a limited degree, one can prompt an AI better and get something that doesn't look as cliché as the default settings, but even then there's often someone who can spot a tell. "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time" applies here.
Art is at least two different things, for at least two different groups: nice to look at etc. is one of them; the human equivalent of a peacock's tail (i.e. the effort is the point and cheating is worse than having nothing) is the other.
I mean, ever since AI was a research program, it was assumed it will some day achieve its goal -- in particular, make computers be creative.
Few times I asked Claude to edit a photo it says it can't, or it produced soemthing awful by running some python library.
I don't get it. Can Claude do any image gen at all? Does it just delegate tasks to other tools to make the video or can it actually produce video?
Back in the days, when I made websites or home pages for clients, my first question was: "What's your message you want to tell with your website?" Sometimes the client couldn't answer this, because he simply wanted a website for the sake of having a website. But a website without a message is meaningless more or less.
That said, there was an entire industry out there cranking out these """fun""" explainer videos, so there must be some market for it out there.
When I visit a website, I'm usually looking for information and not for a message.
I built https://gallotails.com/ because I am a cocktail enthusiast. First commit, March 6th 2019. One of the features I am proud is which cocktails you can build based on your ingredients, and I was smart, the bar ignores garnishes and can suggest cocktails you're one ingredient away. But you have to add the ingredients. And interpret the bar screen.
And here's what I did with ChatGPT a few days ago: https://chatgpt.com/share/6ab59877-4b74-83e8-8da5-966d9f3a38...
Clicked the microphone icon and rambled for a few seconds (could have just taken a picture too I guess). Nudged ChatGPT to only give me simple cocktails I can stir instead of using a mixer. Said I could buy a lime, sure. Then asked how to keep the ginger beer fresh.
There is NO WAY I can code all of that in my little gallotails.com - a single chat window has entirely replaced my site. And that's my pet little project I do it on weekends, mostly to keep my tech skills sharp. I can only imagine what the biggest cocktails website, actual companies, are going / will go through once more and more people just realize the chat tab is enough. And I am not talking about purely content, ChatGPT can do everything my site does, and more, into any direction, in an instant.
Which left me with the question, then what should my site be? Community? To be taken over by agents?
Currently munching on what sites like mine should do, and what they should be.
Eg from your share, the model output “I prefer it Scotch-heavy rather than 50/50 because otherwise it gets very sweet.”
It’s basically cribbed this from someone; it literally can’t taste.
The frontier labs are not yet able to do rlvr over mixology/meatspace. So maybe think on how to capitalize on that.
Oh yeah, and I am not mourning or anything like that. And I do want the human touch, because AI can't. But humans, at least over the internet, can send their agents, or companies can run agents and I won't know from my site if it's an actual human, or some AI fabricated interaction (can't even trust an image it uploads).
When AI first showed up a few years ago, I thought about opening an actual physical cocktail bar. Hypothesizing humans will be tired after a long day of their agents talking to other agents, they would crave for actual humans. I would ban electronics inside - no distractions. Maybe one day I will go for that...
This is not sustainable in the long term, but irrational longer than solvent yadda yadda.
Chatgpt would shit on my great grandma's waffle recipe but it's the one I'll keep making till the day I die.
My software development process feels exactly like every debugging session in the holodeck that seemed terribly unrealistic to me.
I'm in SRE so systems reasoning is something of the value. But me writing code or even configuring stuff? That's dead. It is a total waste of time - Claude can do it better, faster and it works.
- Video devlogs were long a shitty way to make a community (I can explain this one in more detail, but in short, the tradeoff between opportunity cost and video quality is a Pareto curve that is bad at all points on the curve, if your goals include both “make game” and “build community for players with devlogs”, the way out is to drop one of those two requirements, either “make YouTube/Twitch/TikTok channel” replaces “make game”, or you build some other audience for your devlogs)
- Good devlogs don’t have that level of detail, to let people easily recreate games
- Most games can’t easily be replicated by LLMs, in short, the people who are good at steering LLMs like that are making their own games.
This is not the first time I heard this story. Sometimes it comes with the lamentation “back in the day people could build communities with devlogs” and no, that was generally not a good way to build communities. It was mostly good streams from YouTubers who were making the game in order to make YouTube content or it was mediocre streams from random devs. Throw in a few people who are famous game devs who choose to stream and get a big audience because they already have a community.
AFAICT this is a fear that some game developers have, that someone will steal their game and run with it, and the stories told are more repeated based on this shared fear than based on realistic scenarios. People repeat it because it’s a good story.
And yes, I’m aware of some situations like 0x10c and the like.
More specifically to AI... A blog on a nice website is no longer a signal for quality so there's just no point in devs investing in that.
The idea is not valuable, ideas are a dime a dozen. The actual value is in your implementation.
It requires discernment, taste, on the part of the user to be able to point the LLM at the weird parts that look wrong.
Even with that, the LLM can only fix most of, not all of, those rough edges.
There's no moat in an idea either so I guess it's down to marketing budget.
It really makes me appreciate how important good game design is. Claude is doing a fine job coding everything I describe, but it doesn't really understand fun, so I need to.
(It's not a great game)
The whole problem with LLMs is that you don't need the detail.
And someone trying to vibe copy another person's game is definitely the type who has no idea of value to add. So many of the slop games the whole concepts are so generic that they definitely just asked chatgpt for everything.
In the modding scenes for some games I play I've seen vibe coded mods where the gameplay additions make no sense and have no sense of balance or fun, with these completely new to the community devs having ko-fi links set up from the start.
An LLM "recreation" doesn't have to be complete or very good. It just has to steal enough thunder to be profitable.
It's it possible for an LLM-created game to be profitable but "unsuccessful?"
For instance, if (on average) if it costs $100 in tokens and time to make a crappy LLM-game clone, but you can clear $200 in sales per game on average, you're ahead.
And the economics of slop mean there are a lot of people in 3rd world countries who will make all that effort for a $100 payout (or less).
My point is they don't actually have to do a good job, they need to make a pile of shit that looks just good enough to trick a few people into buying it.
Scenario one: they’re competing with my game and stealing my thunder. In this scenario my game wasn’t very good to begin with.
Scenario two: we’re going after different customers. They get the customers who want a cheaper game, I’m getting the customers who want a better game.
And that's why we can't have good things...
(This is just gonna keep happening more and more until eventually we'll need something like a patent system for ideas)
So, a patent?
> That's why I created isitsaas.io: your platform for determining whether your llm wrapper has product potential, or whether people would rather just use claude directly instead. Simply pop in your business idea, and our award winning, proprietary technology will ask claude if you can make money off of it.
> Trial memberships start at $10/month
Then it’s sufficiently non-obvious. I believe there’s still a pretty big field of things that fall into this category. Making proper things is a lot more than writing some code.
You can also host a chat interface that connects to said MCP server as a convenience. But serious users probably already have their own inference and it's already hooked into other resources as well.
I've been playing with an LLM backed reference checker for my partner who is a lecturer. For each reference in some work she's marking an agent is dispatched to read the referenced source and check that the reference is correct / accurate / not hallucinated.
It's useful to her, but it feels like it would be a waste of effort to turn into a product, because pasting the same document into Claude/ChatGPT with a prompt like "download and read each reference etc" would work pretty much just as well.
I had similar concerns about an AI backed training generation company I interviewed with. I asked how they saw themselves competing with increasingly capable generic harnesses. I don't recall exactly what they said but the impression I got was they were so focused on competing with the big LMS players that they hadn't really considered it.
If you don't care so much about adding something significant to the world, and your LLM-buttons-wrapper is a novelty, chug along and see where it goes if you're having fun. Looking for what value mean at this moment is a much harder effort, and probably a luck-based endeavour.
I don't have fun creating LLM-wrappers or at least haven't thought of a fun idea for it that could be even a fun novelty to work on so personally I'm not doing it but I'm using LLMs for other fun stuff that required much more of my free time before.
Very few things can't be reduced to insignificance. MacOS was just cribbing PARC, Facebook is just a glorified PHP forum, Dropbox is just SFTP, etc. etc.
Even in deep-tech, Zipline is just wrapping from deeper-tech (batteries motors etc), GLP-1s were a VA throwaway that dusted off, etc. etc.
LLM wrapper doesn't mean anything, it's an implementation detail. Besides being an LLM wrapper what is a given thing?
The beer app wasn't just a beer app, it was the intersection of the first time accelerometers were doing something that the average consumer could interact with in their pocket, the first time there was something to spend money on for your phone besides a wallpaper, a ton of things.
If anything now when something seems trivial or like a toy, but it has a lot of traction, I want to spend energy figuring out why is it more meaningful than it appears.
I don't get what exactly you are talking about as a reply to my comment, what exercise exactly? Deciding if something is worth spending time if you're having fun with it?
> If anything now when something seems trivial or like a toy, but it has a lot of traction, I want to spend energy figuring out why is it more meaningful than it appears.
Sure, if you're having fun (and in fun I include a sense of accomplishment, curiosity, whatever tickles you) with that, go for it.
It's a strangely arrogant reply to my comment, perhaps you read something into it that I didn't say and replied to that?
Also for creatives, some sort of aesthetic control? Most of the examples on this page look like templates you’d see in an office suite that appear swish, but are ultimately bland.
Start from thinking about product value add, and user behaviors first.
The LLM only does average returns from average inputs.
Nope. If all your doing is prompting an agent to build stuff (especially if what it is building is based on LLMs), then you might as well take it back to the whiteboard and rethink how you're spending your time/tokens.
Some SaaS products have network effects, but that doesn't appy to new software.
Starting a SaaS business in 2026 seems a bit silly to me. Not saying people won't make money, but you'd have to be pretty lucky.
But: I think as LLMs fully generate more and more complicated things, we’ll start discovering ways to make them generate with good user control.
Some of the stuff I've seen is mindblowingly impressive in how they've captured quality creative decisions, and how the models can reason about visually appealing designs.
It understands things like continuity, themes, facial expressions, cultural memes/references, symbolism, etc. And it generates things using a lot of multi-modal behavior by using 3d, images, etc.
Some really incredibly impressive stuff.
[0] https://simulationcorner.net/A_Bunch_of_Rocks.mp4
> After all, I undertook to tell several trillion years of human history in the space of a short story and I leave it to you as to how well I succeeded. I also undertook another task, but I won't tell you what that was lest l spoil the story for you.
[1] https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
The drawing/animation style feels suitably off from xkcd - more naive stick figure, than what xkcd looks like?
Some speed/timing issues with the walk cycles.
For all that - mind-blowing that it's generated so quickly.
Say more about the process and / or drop some link pointers.
Then start Claude. From that point on, it’s mostly prompting and evaluating the results. Like any good engineer, you shouldn’t simply start with “Create a video from this comic.” Instead, take a step-by-step approach: discuss the visual style, animations, ask for audio examples, create a script, and then develop a storyboard (ask for a .html document).
The important part is to break the whole generation process down into small, manageable steps. I also used the brainstorming skill from Superpowers for the discussions. It makes the whole process much easier when the AI asks the questions and I just have to answer them.
The result is 4500 line python code generated by Opus 5.5 and a lot of video and audio files.
I say Bummer if more people adopt this style, its gonna become less and less authentic feeling as the months go on now.
One should be skeptical of the demos they initially see at model release, as there have been instances of some being called out as AI generated video or work that took days and millions of tokens and not a one shot as claimed.
The first few days Astra was out, I attempted to reproduce a few of the demos I saw on twitter, and it was clear Astra had a distinctive style and certain limitations when working in short sessions with tools like Blender that could distinguish genuine demos from bs for retweets.
People putting out these demos should share their sessions to really show what was going on, and I invite people to test models and try to replicate what they see and draw their own conclusions.
I'm running Arch Linux and would rather not install DaVinci Resolve, but Blender would be fine for the non-linear video editor.
My plan is to use ChatCut to trim and split into the different sections. After I have the five segments, what would you suggest for swapping the background (environment) and attire? There are two simultaneous camera shots (front and side) that I'd like to stitch together as well.
Any suggestions? (Paying someone a couple of hundred $CAD to take this task off my plate would also work.)
Above all, the model’s sense of what feels and what looks good is the most important. So many times the models have missed clearly wrong layouts etc. I guess it just shows the limitations of LLMs when they should generate something they have not been trained on?
If opus 5.5 is now better capable of that, that would be brilliant!
- Voiceovers: aligns animations to the voiceover, can generate voiceover with elevenlabs, or will transcribe and timestamp a real voiceover
- can reorder scenes both in code, and using ffmpeg for audio.
- interactive controls during authoring, can ask for micro edits or re-builds
- MP4 export/encoder
- Generates the video with agent of your choice (obviously)
Fast forward a few months, and Opus 5.5 is now running my entire video production pipeline. This model is leaps and bounds ahead of the previous model.
I can generate a complete 5-minute explainer video on my MacBook Air M4 in about five minutes from a single prompt, using the Gemini TTS API and MiniMax H3 Max for b-roll. It creates thumbnails and titles, handles the entire process, and automatically uploads the result via the YouTube API—all powered by a Claude Code plugin. (youtube.com/@ctrlaltexplain for those interested).
https://gzvxcspoxhhgoeog.public.blob.vercel-storage.com/vide...
For 80% AI does the work in seconds and 20% is manual work in minutes to get exactly what they want.
I wish more people optimized for learning than "how fancy can i make it look"
No way to download or watch it in the webapp of opencomputer. No instructions on what to do? Do I need to run it locally? It seems it did use usage.
About 6 months ago I spent 12 hours creating a video for our Edge.js [1] announcement that, in the end... people were not very inspired by (to say the least). See the video here [2].
Then, about a month ago, I spent 6 hours creating a video for our Wasmer SDK announcement. It was better, but still didn't go as viral as I wanted [3]. I always thought we would need a big budget to do them.
But then, yesterday I tried Opus 5.5... and man, I'm impressed. The video was one-shotted with this prompt:
This is what Claude Opus 5.5 one-shotted (tl;dr: we went viral): https://x.com/wasmerio/status/2102849543260029379[1] https://edgejs.org/
[2] https://x.com/wasmerio/status/2033966082944577693
[3] https://x.com/wasmerio/status/2094845905379922302
Exactly how? What does ffmpeg record?
The code for the infamous "I'm upping my p(doom)" video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j-hR4fJywU) is open-source and uses Processing: https://github.com/JohnHeibel/PDoomVideo
I am not super sure what makes it so good, but it seems like it's a good option to try if you have access and want to see how the frontier models are doing.
Maybe this is why Apple chose that family to help train Siri AI. (Siri AI is not a fine-tuned Gemini)
I asked it to make a site for my TI4 reference project: https://axiomvortix.com
It produced a video about an AI startup with the vague goal of centralizing data.
If you're the author congrats, great work!
(not that they were great before, but ...)
So predictable.