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.
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.
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.
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.
It works as one shot. The only feedback i gave for the one I had it do was the music was too loud, and then after i told it, it was great, it said: "Your notes on the music balance made a real difference.", which was kind of weirdly passive aggressive!
It was good enough that our CEO and marketing team are in a room trying different ideas with it after I showed it to them an hour ago.
I took a cue from this link and created an explainer for a complex new feature I've been building with heavy Claude assistance.
The one shot video was brilliant and polished. It would need minor refinement before presenting to a customer, because it used some of that internal vocabulary Claude makes up to describe parts of a system it's working on.
However: I found the explainer astoundingly useful to me. Now, finally, I understand some of that internal vocabulary Claude's been burying me with. The visuals really helped round out my understanding of what it's been talking about.
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.
I think the idea was mostly just to push it towards a style that isn’t the typical uncanny valley videos. Like that look from so many youtube ads, now.
I love LLMs in research, programming, email cleanup—the list goes on. I want the word guessing program to give me lessons I can test and verify. But I’ll ask humans to give me opinions on unanswerable questions. I don’t want a confident dead bot telling me about life. FO. I guess it was only a matter of time before someone created something with LLM that rankles. /rant
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
No, in the end society should decide. Saying "let the markets decide" means immediately ceding to those with wealth, since those with wealth can distort markets however they see fit.
I rather live in a world where society decides the nature of technological change, for better or worse, in a democratic fashion than the current iteration we have which is mostly about lighting trillions of dollars on fire while never providing basic needs for civilians (free school lunches, medicare for all, universal childcare, free community college) only to be force fed on what to use by a group of people that do not care about me or my community that always seem to espouse anti-human beliefs.
Ah yes, "the things will never improve if you help workers one iota" mantra. There's nothing else to say except you want workers to suffer and think progress is based on the amount of immiseration we inflict onto workers.
It's a sick anti-human ideology and it's not shocking when you look at how anti-human tech leaders truly are.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was getting ready to rant when reading your "A video is a richer medium" line, and then read the whole thing and saw you followed up with a point explaining exactly why: "just want to "pull" the info they need, for themselves, at their own fast pace, quickly identifying it"
Needless to say, usually if my choices are video or nothing, I'll choose nothing and figure it out myself.
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.
Yeah this is true - 4 bullets and an image vs a 10 minute video… dayum son ‘I’m a visual person’ - no, no you’re not - not if it’s ten mins vs a 40 second read
When we provide written documents with embedded videos revealed by on-screen toggles, covering different sections of a help document, almost no one reads the doc, they just find the relevant video. Many of our docs require images, and videos do a better job of, for example, showing how to clamp an arm onto a structure.
Video that cover different parts of an outline are a great use of videos. Videos that try to cover too much all in one are a lesser use. Yes, you can use scrub to find in a video, but showing a text outline and letting users click to reveal videos for specifics topics works very well.
Kind of whitewashing howto docs here--which in recent years have been replaced with (human-made) solely optimized for SEO to serve ads. That's why explainer videos took off in the first place.
I sometimes run yt-dlp against YouTube or TikTok URLs to extract an mp4, then send that to Gemini to ask questions about the content.
It's particularly good for those frustrating recipe videos where they don't tell you quantities of ingredients to use - you can have Gemini hallucinate the quantities and it normally gets them about right.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Why not replace the backend of your site with the LLM? Let it do the recommendations in structured inputs and outputs so the front end isn’t a chat interface but leverages the fuzzy nature of LLM’s.
I'd guess it's because of costs. Either API costs or hardware costs. Hosting a simple webapp is very different from having an LLM backend in terms of marginal costs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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).
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.
> 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.
> 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)
> 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.
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.
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.
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 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?
The exercise is trying to reduce the world into significant/not significant efforts and then write some things off as only worth it if you don't care about the former.
Also I honestly thought we were two arrogant people conversing in good faith: you don't find unarrogant people saying things like "If you don't care so much about adding something significant to the world..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
>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.
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.
> "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.
A good consultant / contractor understands the implicit requirements and is able to ask the right questions that the client is able to answer instead or planting traps, gotchas, and acting like a mean teacher examining a naughty student.
Yes, likely the client wanted a website because it was trendy and competitors were starting to have websites and he didn't want to be left behind. Now, that you sneered enough at this business wanting to stay in business, you can actually advise them. Maybe they don't have a message. Maybe they never had to think about things that way, because they never made this type of branding decisions and operated in the old offline word, based on word of mouth, old types of ads, phone calling people whatnot.
And a website can be quite meaningful without branding messaging. For example a valid message is: this is our address, this is our phone number, here is our team, our product descriptions and so on. Or for that type of business: the opening hours, etc.
I think this is part of the reason users like working with AI better, because it actually helps them get to the thing they actually want, instead of gatekeeping and testing whether the client is worthy and deserving enough to have a website made for them.
Absolutely spot on. Same thing goes on with interviewers trying to one up, trick, and feel superior to the candidate they’re interviewing instead of assessing capability/fit.
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.
> a website without a message is meaningless more or less.
meh, I don't care about the message of your business, I just want the ADDRESS and OPENING HOURS. Why is that so hard to put up front and center and instead I've got to scroll past videos and hero images and chatbots and dickovers and embedded interactive maps without the actual address showing argh </rant>
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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!
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.)
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.
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 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.
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).
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 interesting, generates HTML and js/CSS transitions, then ffmpeg. Clever and flexible.
I would really like to take a playwright driven script, then use a similar pipeline to create explainer videos. Then I can add my own voiceover. It will really reduce production time but keep it flexible so I can tweak the script but not need to record over and over.
Does something like this exist? Would be a great open source project.
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!
For me it's not really the pacing. What stands out is how much better Opus 5.5 got at coordinating. It knows its own role and what the other agents are for. Its world isn't just sub-agents, the user and itself anymore. It can actually work with other agents as peers, it understands boundaries, and it cooperates instead of only giving orders.
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.
Pretty good for startups who are about to launch their product. Pitch decks and websites are a great way to showcase your work, but a visual feel is always better than bland content.
Instead of paying designers and editors the big bucks, enterprises can use such models to be self-reliant.
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?:
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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/
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
FWIW the examples in OP were generated by image models, not Claude - Claude just orchestrated the other models via OpenRouter
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?
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.
It works as one shot. The only feedback i gave for the one I had it do was the music was too loud, and then after i told it, it was great, it said: "Your notes on the music balance made a real difference.", which was kind of weirdly passive aggressive!
It was good enough that our CEO and marketing team are in a room trying different ideas with it after I showed it to them an hour ago.
I took a cue from this link and created an explainer for a complex new feature I've been building with heavy Claude assistance.
The one shot video was brilliant and polished. It would need minor refinement before presenting to a customer, because it used some of that internal vocabulary Claude makes up to describe parts of a system it's working on.
However: I found the explainer astoundingly useful to me. Now, finally, I understand some of that internal vocabulary Claude's been burying me with. The visuals really helped round out my understanding of what it's been talking about.
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?
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.
Otherwise, it will generate a sequence of many images generated using image models to make a video, which might cost more.
I think the idea was mostly just to push it towards a style that isn’t the typical uncanny valley videos. Like that look from so many youtube ads, now.
This is so different from the OP's site. This is so much better, trying it out now.
Purpose of life?! Fracking hell. Shut that off.
I love LLMs in research, programming, email cleanup—the list goes on. I want the word guessing program to give me lessons I can test and verify. But I’ll ask humans to give me opinions on unanswerable questions. I don’t want a confident dead bot telling me about life. FO. I guess it was only a matter of time before someone created something with LLM that rankles. /rant
Worth adding: the $3.21 were for nanobanana2 probably generating the assets.
WOW
I did one for our company and showed it to the CEO and now I am talking him out of just yeeting it directly onto social media.
That's actually amazing. I think we can use it for our product.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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 think there will always be a market for human-made things, but this comes with a premium and not everyone can afford it.
> I see this as giving everyone the ability to make professional looking videos for their products, services, events, and websites.
Who are they gonna sell those to, though, if everyone is unemployed because they're not needed?
Exactly who, do you think, will remain employed, and what will they do?
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.
No, in the end society should decide. Saying "let the markets decide" means immediately ceding to those with wealth, since those with wealth can distort markets however they see fit.
I rather live in a world where society decides the nature of technological change, for better or worse, in a democratic fashion than the current iteration we have which is mostly about lighting trillions of dollars on fire while never providing basic needs for civilians (free school lunches, medicare for all, universal childcare, free community college) only to be force fed on what to use by a group of people that do not care about me or my community that always seem to espouse anti-human beliefs.
So I assume everyone in your utopia is still writing code onto punch cards?
Ah yes, "the things will never improve if you help workers one iota" mantra. There's nothing else to say except you want workers to suffer and think progress is based on the amount of immiseration we inflict onto workers.
It's a sick anti-human ideology and it's not shocking when you look at how anti-human tech leaders truly are.
You’ll have your artisanal math proof and hand-made software certifications in due course, no worries.
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.
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
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
[dead]
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.
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.
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.
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.
>But I usually find it useful to have both.
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)
I was getting ready to rant when reading your "A video is a richer medium" line, and then read the whole thing and saw you followed up with a point explaining exactly why: "just want to "pull" the info they need, for themselves, at their own fast pace, quickly identifying it"
Needless to say, usually if my choices are video or nothing, I'll choose nothing and figure it out myself.
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
A video about exiting vim, however...
The illiteracy seems to carry straight into video production. There are way too many 15 minute videos for 4 lines of instructions.
Yeah because people don't like to read. They do it if they're forced to but no more.
Yeah this is true - 4 bullets and an image vs a 10 minute video… dayum son ‘I’m a visual person’ - no, no you’re not - not if it’s ten mins vs a 40 second read
When we provide written documents with embedded videos revealed by on-screen toggles, covering different sections of a help document, almost no one reads the doc, they just find the relevant video. Many of our docs require images, and videos do a better job of, for example, showing how to clamp an arm onto a structure.
Video that cover different parts of an outline are a great use of videos. Videos that try to cover too much all in one are a lesser use. Yes, you can use scrub to find in a video, but showing a text outline and letting users click to reveal videos for specifics topics works very well.
Kind of whitewashing howto docs here--which in recent years have been replaced with (human-made) solely optimized for SEO to serve ads. That's why explainer videos took off in the first place.
I sometimes run yt-dlp against YouTube or TikTok URLs to extract an mp4, then send that to Gemini to ask questions about the content.
It's particularly good for those frustrating recipe videos where they don't tell you quantities of ingredients to use - you can have Gemini hallucinate the quantities and it normally gets them about right.
How would that be different than the "Ask" button YouTube videos have now? I haven't used it much so I don't know, just curious.
I trust my workflow a tiny bit more, because I don't know how that one works.
Plus having the video file means I can extract frames as images at specific timestamps.
Homely though the ask feature is probably fit for purpose, at least on YouTube.
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 value brevity highly. As the cost of producing visually appealing filler drops to zero, I hope people realize what a waste it is.
I’d rather watch an explainer video that goes over how to build IKEA furniture, than try to follow those terrible manuals.
Here let me make a video about how to respond to comments like this ... /s
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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...
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 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.
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.
Why not replace the backend of your site with the LLM? Let it do the recommendations in structured inputs and outputs so the front end isn’t a chat interface but leverages the fuzzy nature of LLM’s.
I'd guess it's because of costs. Either API costs or hardware costs. Hosting a simple webapp is very different from having an LLM backend in terms of marginal costs.
True. I don’t think it takes much of a model thankfully. Luna or something…
OTOH your site is a nice and simple interface that does not require me to "have a conversation" to do things.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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).
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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)
>a patent system for ideas)
So, a patent?
> 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
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.
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.
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 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?
The exercise is trying to reduce the world into significant/not significant efforts and then write some things off as only worth it if you don't care about the former.
Also I honestly thought we were two arrogant people conversing in good faith: you don't find unarrogant people saying things like "If you don't care so much about adding something significant to the world..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not always a call that wraps an llm.
The LLM only does average returns from average inputs.
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.
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
>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.
this is why people have been suggesting an AI bubble, outside of the frontier model labs
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.
> "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.
A good consultant / contractor understands the implicit requirements and is able to ask the right questions that the client is able to answer instead or planting traps, gotchas, and acting like a mean teacher examining a naughty student.
Yes, likely the client wanted a website because it was trendy and competitors were starting to have websites and he didn't want to be left behind. Now, that you sneered enough at this business wanting to stay in business, you can actually advise them. Maybe they don't have a message. Maybe they never had to think about things that way, because they never made this type of branding decisions and operated in the old offline word, based on word of mouth, old types of ads, phone calling people whatnot.
And a website can be quite meaningful without branding messaging. For example a valid message is: this is our address, this is our phone number, here is our team, our product descriptions and so on. Or for that type of business: the opening hours, etc.
I think this is part of the reason users like working with AI better, because it actually helps them get to the thing they actually want, instead of gatekeeping and testing whether the client is worthy and deserving enough to have a website made for them.
Absolutely spot on. Same thing goes on with interviewers trying to one up, trick, and feel superior to the candidate they’re interviewing instead of assessing capability/fit.
You got all that from two sentences? I think you are reading a bit too much into it.
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.
> so there must be some market for it out there.
Not anymore, looks like.
Websites can just present information.
When I visit a website, I'm usually looking for information and not for a message.
Sure.
Thanks for writing this, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills otherwise.
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.
> a website without a message is meaningless more or less.
meh, I don't care about the message of your business, I just want the ADDRESS and OPENING HOURS. Why is that so hard to put up front and center and instead I've got to scroll past videos and hero images and chatbots and dickovers and embedded interactive maps without the actual address showing argh </rant>
sorry that website was probably not your fault
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.
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
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.
[1] https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
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 :-)
wow, that is profound and beautiful. thank you for making that; really liked the pacing especially at the end when the time tics away in the class
I really liked this, thank you
Wow, very cool. Thanks for sharing.
This is great! Thank you!
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 won't open Twitter, but where on Reddit is this stuff posted?
r/ClaudeAI, r/ClaudeCode, r/claude
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.
It’s low effort but the quality is reasonably good
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'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!
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.)
My friend..definition of “good” is very relative. These are just flashy slide decks
HN never fails to be disappointed.
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.
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
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?
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.
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).
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…
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.
This is interesting, generates HTML and js/CSS transitions, then ffmpeg. Clever and flexible.
I would really like to take a playwright driven script, then use a similar pipeline to create explainer videos. Then I can add my own voiceover. It will really reduce production time but keep it flexible so I can tweak the script but not need to record over and over.
Does something like this exist? Would be a great open source project.
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!
For me it's not really the pacing. What stands out is how much better Opus 5.5 got at coordinating. It knows its own role and what the other agents are for. Its world isn't just sub-agents, the user and itself anymore. It can actually work with other agents as peers, it understands boundaries, and it cooperates instead of only giving orders.
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?
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.
No, it doesn't perform any image gen. It orchestrates other models for asset gen + tts + stt and combines everything together
claude can storyboard and make animations using JavaScript. Opus 5.5 in particular is really good at that.
Pretty good for startups who are about to launch their product. Pitch decks and websites are a great way to showcase your work, but a visual feel is always better than bland content.
Instead of paying designers and editors the big bucks, enterprises can use such models to be self-reliant.
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".
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...
ts is hilarious
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.
These are garbage but Opus 5.5 can actually do much better: https://x.com/emollick/status/2103272686570918334
This is much worse.
All of these already have a similar vibe and will become commonly recognised in a few weeks time, making them not good.
What is the agent using to make those videos?
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
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.
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
Building civ.game with Opus. Its fully procedural, threejs plus wasm. What a time to be alive.
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"
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.
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 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.
Ah remember the good old days when models couldn't do images with text because it couldn't spell or letter would be borked?
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?
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.
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
>>> records it with ffmpeg
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
i think opus is really good at writing code for explainer i think sonnet is better
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.
Explainer videos should focus on explaining, but these videos are nearly content-free.
Kurzgesagt makes some of the best explainer videos, and they spend most of their time writing the script, not making the animation: https://youtu.be/uFk0mgljtns?si=NCMxIYGUYY-BbQgB&t=75
I expected sound, with an explainer video. Is there sound?
Wow, this is phenomenal. Thanks for sharing.
If you're the author congrats, great work!
Get ready to see this format of video everywhere now
Can I just say "oh dear god no ..."
(not that they were great before, but ...)
Would this means remotion etc are not needed?
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 have used Sol for manim work - that also is quite good.
how do we validate explainer videos. Is there a benchmark for this?
All of these suck
Yeah, and other models as well. YouTube is now full of AI explainer slop videos.
Slop. How is this good?
> Today's free videos are all used up. Deploy the agent to your own OpenComputer account and it runs without limits.
So predictable.
I don't think this is good for social media. Another AI slop coming up.
So opus makes a script? What makes the video?
Why does opus get all the credit?
no it's not
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
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/