- 47comments
- 30comments
- 29comments
- —discuss
- 71comments
- 17comments
- 391comments
- 388comments
- 10comments
- 105comments
- 21comments
- 59comments
- 10comments
- 125comments
- 29comments
- 15comments
- 249comments
- 71comments
- 413comments
- 46comments
- 686comments
- 103comments
- 179comments
- 196comments
- 165comments
- 4comments
- 101comments
- 32comments
- 436comments
- 101comments
What is the agent using to make those videos?
Wow, this is phenomenal. Thanks for sharing.
If you're the author congrats, great work!
Arguably, this type of content was already slop before the AI times, so nothing of value was lost.
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.
Can I just say "oh dear god no ..."
(not that they were great before, but ...)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
The whole problem with LLMs is that you don't need the detail.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
If someone makes a cheap copy of my unreleased game and it's bad, that's also bad for me, I think.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is that true anymore, LLM will implement everything for you, idea actually matters more now
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think it has to be about stealing their game with any level of skill or fidelity. It's enough to just spam 10 garbage clones with vaguely similar banner images and descriptions so that nobody will find theirs.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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
It's not always a call that wraps an llm.
The LLM only does average returns from average inputs.
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.
this is why people have been suggesting an AI bubble, outside of the frontier model labs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
OTOH your site is a nice and simple interface that does not require me to "have a conversation" to do things.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
I wonder what the future is of SaaS in a world where everybody can vibe up what they need on demand.
Yeh try that. Not that simple at all, this is why servicenow and sales force are just killing it
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
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".
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.
I won't open Twitter, but where on Reddit is this stuff posted?
r/ClaudeAI, r/ClaudeCode, r/claude
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.
[0] https://simulationcorner.net/A_Bunch_of_Rocks.mp4
This is great! Thank you!
Wow, very cool. Thanks for sharing.
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.
Thanks. I’ll pass the feedback on to Opus 5.5 :-)
Dude, so well done.
Say more about the process and / or drop some link pointers.
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.
I had already seen the comic, but watching the video reminded me of "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov [1]:
[1] https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
lol no it's not.
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.
My friend..definition of “good” is very relative. These are just flashy slide decks
HN never fails to be disappointed.
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.
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
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.
Curious about the song - the mp3 in the repo is wildly different from the linked YouTube recording?
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).
Here are a couple examples from r/ClaudeAI:
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/
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.
FWIW the examples in OP were generated by image models, not Claude - Claude just orchestrated the other models via OpenRouter
Emergent capabilities, bitter lesson, increasing general intelligence, etc
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.
RL fried on pelicans in various situations.
Particularly in adversarial ones such as picturing them operating equipment selected to be maximally incompatible with pelican anatomy.
This is so different from the OP's site. This is so much better, trying it out now.
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?
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.
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.
LLMs are not "intelligent being"s
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.
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
You’ll have your artisanal math proof and hand-made software certifications in due course, no worries.
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.
"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.
I think there will always be a market for human-made things, but this comes with a premium and not everyone can afford it.
Still enables people to do more. Just like Microsoft Word and and a printer / photocopier allowed small scale kinda-nicely-typset amateur magazines / news publications in schools or small local or hobby communities, but it didn't quite rise to the level of professional publishing and typesetting of actual prestige magazines and papers. But that didn't matter, because both relative prestige and practical value are real things.
Making frozen pizza doesn't get close to eating pizza at an authentic Italian restaurant, but frozen pizza is still pretty good. So if someone says "introducing frozen pizzas will enable anyone to eat a good pizza at home, no need to go to a restaurant" then it's a half truth. The true restaurant experience will still have its role, but the frozen product is still pretty good compared to not having that option at all. But your friends will not be at awe at your culinary skills if you make frozen pizza. But they'll still likely eat it and appreciate it when hungry and chilling at your house.
I worked as an animator for years, the work sucks, well, the specific act of animating life is fun, but that's like 20% at most of the job, the rest is politics and coming to terms with the massive out of control exploitation that is the animation industry. Tear it all down.
People used to say someday you can sit around all day and create things. Now they say you can go into the trades and build someone's house or something.
Worth adding: the $3.21 were for nanobanana2 probably generating the assets.
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.
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”?
You missed the "make no mistake".
Oops, already 1 billion in debt.
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?
Otherwise, it will generate a sequence of many images generated using image models to make a video, which might cost more.
A given model may or may not have strong self-awareness with respect to how strong it is with different tools.
If it's unusually skilled with one tool, but it's not the default tool for a job, then you have to put it in their hands before they reach for something else.
The Opus 5.5 javascript-art + art direction definitely seems to be one of these surprise capabilities jumps. Maybe strong enough that providers will start to nudge in that direction in the system prompt, so that the user request doesn't need to specify it.
That's actually amazing. I think we can use it for our product.
This is mindblowing indeed, but I guess you have to iterate over it rather than just one-shotting it. OPs outputs seem more one-shot renders using remotion.
Yeah, and other models as well. YouTube is now full of AI explainer slop videos.
So predictable.
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.
Building civ.game with Opus. Its fully procedural, threejs plus wasm. What a time to be alive.
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.
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
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.
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.
Ask Claude for instructions to play the video.
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:
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?
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
All of these already have a similar vibe and will become commonly recognised in a few weeks time, making them not good.
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.
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.)
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?:
https://gzvxcspoxhhgoeog.public.blob.vercel-storage.com/vide...
Slop. How is this good?
I have an OSS framework for this: https://github.com/scosman/videowright
- 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)
I build something similar as a claude skill but less impressive and complete than yours. https://github.com/splitbrain/ndemo
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"
Ah remember the good old days when models couldn't do images with text because it couldn't spell or letter would be borked?
no it's not
for some reason, claude models are extremely bad at manim, including opus 5.5 (surprisingly gemini is very good at it)
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)
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.
Could you share some examples?
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.
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.
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!
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…
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.
Thanks for writing this, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills otherwise.
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.
Websites can just present information.
When I visit a website, I'm usually looking for information and not for a message.
Sure.
In contrast to some powerpoint, what is gained here is that you get to extinguish a couple species at every render. But it's ok because you'll get a bonus and donate 1% to the WWF.
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.
i think opus is really good at writing code for explainer i think sonnet is better
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.
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.
Given we can write the documents in LLMs and summarise/explain the documents with LLMs one would hope we would go back to written documents instead of videos now.
Instead we've worked out how to get the LLM to make videos.
Yeah because people don't like to read. They do it if they're forced to but no more.
People are bad at writing clearly what a new startup or product actually does. A video is a richer medium, it can show the thing being used, the UI during use, tell a clearer story with a person using it, some context etc. It also forces them to prioritize more, and have to distill their message down to a certain bounded timeframe.
Neither gives any guarantee. Both static text and videos can be done well and badly. But I usually find it useful to have both. A video is like being guided through their vision of what the thing is (a "push" message). This can be annoying to many nerd types who want to cut through all that and just want to "pull" the info they need, for themselves, at their own fast pace, quickly identifying it and not being spoonfed. But the typical user is not like this, and prefers the spoonfed/edutained approach.
Yes that's the trick. And much more. If you have any sort of content, you should express it as a slideshow, a white paper, a blog post, a video, a podcast, etc. Get it out in as many forms as you can. Maybe even performative dance or song if you've got that energy.
Or just write one gnarly detailed form and let the consumer generate the form that works best for them (preferably with their own local model)
12.4% of the world is illiterate and I'd guess more like 20% would have trouble quickly taking text and turning that into instructions faster than a video could do the same thing.
An illiterate person has no interest in a 3 minute video on how to enable paste mode in VIM
The illiteracy seems to carry straight into video production. There are way too many 15 minute videos for 4 lines of instructions.
Here let me make a video about how to respond to comments like this ... /s
What about teaching employees the basics of a job?
I love using notebookLM for orientation stuff.
Not saying you're wrong. But maybe there's a reason Tiktok got so popular. Maybe for many people this way of communicating information is more effective and doesn't feel as boring/tedious.
I wonder if those are more engaging or more effective, they could look similar if untested.
I’d rather watch an explainer video that goes over how to build IKEA furniture, than try to follow those terrible manuals.
A few years ago, to configure a printer I had to watch a video because all the written explanations were uninteligible. The screen is tiny, the menu confusing, and I couldn't find where to enter the wifi+password until I followed the video.
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?
No, it doesn't perform any image gen. It orchestrates other models for asset gen + tts + stt and combines everything together
All impressive demos are AI's being trained on some specific tool or workflow.
They will do well provided tools and ways to verify the work and iterating on that.
All these impressive things are by making these tools available by default, rather than having to know about them and integrating them manually with skills and mpcs.
claude can storyboard and make animations using JavaScript. Opus 5.5 in particular is really good at that.
Sorry opencomputer :sweat_smile:
But made a local fork that works just as well with 'claude-code -p' and a local copy of ffmpeg
https://github.com/ndom91/shipvideo-local
So opus makes a script? What makes the video?
Why does opus get all the credit?
I'm not overly impressed with those videos. They simply move too quickly for someone who isn't already familiar with the subject. There simply isn't enough time to read what's on each slide. Perhaps this could be fixed trivially with a prompt, but just going on the example videos, I'm not sure this is all that useful.
Now that said, it is wild that in just a few years we've got AI making videos like this!
Would this means remotion etc are not needed?
These aren't good. They have the same llm-speak that has pithy short sayings but are strung together not in a way that unfolds naturally and clearly but only as generally conceptually related.
Good explainer videos need a human teacher to craft the narrative and exposition.