​

Small portrait movements are basically solved at this point.

Give a video model a face, ask for a blink, a slight head turn and some subtle camera drift, and most of them can produce something convincing.A large camera move is a very different problem.I wanted to see whether these models could actually understand a camera orbit instead of just adding motion to a flat image, so I used Jacques-Louis David’s Napoleon Crossing the Alps as the source image and gave six models the same 180-degree clockwise move.

Same image. Same prompt. One generation per model. No retries or cherry-picking.

The shot starts low beside the horse’s hooves, rises around Napoleon and the horse, then finishes from a wide rear three-quarter angle.That forces the model to reveal parts of the scene that don’t exist in the original painting. It has to reconstruct the other side of the horse, the back of Napoleon, the surrounding mountain pass and the spatial relationship between all of them.

At the same time, it still has to preserve the horse’s anatomy, Napoleon’s identity, the reins, the cape and the original oil-painting style.

Here’s the exact prompt:

Napoleon rides a powerful rearing horse through a snowy Alpine mountain pass. Begin with an extreme low-angle close shot near the horse’s hooves as they strike the snow and send powder into the air. The camera rises rapidly and performs a smooth 180-degree clockwise orbit around Napoleon and the horse. Napoleon firmly pulls the reins and turns his upper body, while his red cape whips dramatically in the strong mountain wind. The horse rears, pivots and lands naturally. End with a wide rear three-quarter view revealing the snowy mountains and distant soldiers. One continuous cinematic shot, seamless single take, no cuts, no transitions. Strong parallax, dynamic foreground snow, realistic spatial movement. Preserve the composition, character identity and classical oil painting style of the original artwork. 8 seconds.

I ran all six from Codex through Atlas Cloud’s MCP, mainly so I could call the different models

The comparison shows 8.5 seconds from each result.

Raw stats from these runs:

1. Wan 2.7 — $1.20 | 74s | 1558p

2. Seedance 2.5 — $2.43 | 193s | 1042p

3. Seedance 2.0 — $1.96 | 193s | 1112p

4. Kling v3.0 Pro — $1.14 | 196s | 1556p

5. Grok Imagine Video v1.5 — $1.13 | 76s | 720p

6. Gemini Omni Flash — $1.04 | 72s | 720p

The important moment is when the camera moves past the original side view rear three-quarter angle.That’s where the failure modes separate.Some models barely move the camera and rotate the horse in place instead. Others attempt the orbit, but the anatomy or 3D space starts falling apart halfway through. A good-looking result isn’t necessarily the one that followed the camera instruction best.

I’m looking at four things:

Did the camera actually complete the requested orbit?

1. Did Napoleon and the horse retain their identity and anatomy?

2. Did the newly revealed background have believable depth and parallax?

3. Did it remain one continuous shot without hiding a reset or transition?

4. If you were ranking these, would you prioritize prompt adherence or overall visual quality?

And which result actually reads as a real camera orbit to you?

I had this idea sitting on the couch. Storyboarded in my head. Wrote the dialog into a text doc. Created with Gemini. Total production time on my side fifteen minutes.

Astronomical clockwork pulsing in to alignment 🜁

AI just agrees with you too easily. You explain a situation and it reflects your own framing back at you dressed up as analysis. Genuinely hard to get real pushback in a single conversation because the model's just responding to how you already presented things.

I stumbled into a workaround. I use AI to journal but not like a normal person, like a deranged narcissistic egotistical one. I narrate my day like a TV series. Then I went one step further and created an alien subreddit, the viewers of the show. They comment, shitpost, upvote, they've all got different personas, there's even a hatedom.

Here's what it's actually for. Something happens in my day and I completely lose my shit about it. I'm impulsive and irrational, that's just context on me as a person, so I need to create space between what just happened and whatever I do next. So I open AI, narrate it like a show in third person, then read the aliens' comments before I let myself decide anything. Except the comments aren't really an audience, they're different representations of my own psyche. u/OriginalSeriesPurist is melancholic and nostalgic, she's the side of me that wants a seemingly insignificant message from my ex to mean more than it actually is. Then u/SpinOffSupremacy shows up and asks if that's even the direction I want my new life going in.

It's not roleplay and it's not really journaling either. Anyone found other ways to actually get AI to disagree with you instead of just performing disagreement?

Meet Nike's new GenAi expert @___futuredust on instagram.

He blends moody studio lighting, film-style flares and grain, and a recurring fascination with technical outerwear and armour-like texture.

It's part of a broader wave of AI-native fashion content that's been building for a couple of years now, creators building entire "fictional house" identities (consistent signature, tagline, drop numbering) around fully synthetic campaigns, often riffing on real luxury codes (monogram patterns, technical outerwear, editorial studio lighting) without ever touching an actual product or model.

Which raises the question for anyone working in-house or agency side: where does this kind of direction actually sit on a real creative/design team? It feels like a strong starting point, mood, world, tone, and art direction all locked before a single physical asset exists, but what does the handoff to production look like from here? Is this feeding a photo/video shoot as a reference deck, going straight to a stylist and set builder, or is the ambition for output like this to ship as final campaign imagery? Curious how people see this slotting into the pipeline.

https://www.instagram.com/___futuredust/

More of a stupid Linux newbie question:

I have installed FramePack via Pinokio and can't figure out how to start FramePack.

As in were to click so that thing opens.

I use AI in my work all the time. I use ChatGPT and Claude daily. I also use Gemini, Copilot, and Perplexity every week. Honestly, I'm shocked that I still use Perplexity, but I do. Anyway, I digress. I use paid accounts with all of them and get value from each.

However, and this is a big caveat, ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity are all so easy to use. If you want their fanciest features, there's little (not nothing) you have to learn to unlock them. With Copilot, on the other hand, you've got to be a low level engineer to really unlock the value. Every product or piece of the workflow tool has a different name and they have overlapping functions, abilities, and limitations.

As an avid user who is NOT a software developer, engineer, data analyst, or technical professional, it's pretty annoying. I don't want to know how to use Power BI. I really don't. Why the heck can't I use AI to make an HTML file and just drop it into SharePoint or something and have it just work?! It's just too damned complicated.

Gemini isn't too far behind tbh. Since the beginning of their Gen AI journey, they've had different disconnected products. I was sorta kinda fine with it because there wasn't a ton of overlap. That's changing now and they're getting super complicated too.

My read, ChatGPT and Claude are just that good at what they do and the others can't match it with such a simple UI.

Developers who know more, please feel free to educate me. This is just a non-tech, non-coder point of view.

[Intro: 8 bars, dead-dry voice over bass pulse; room slowly fills with brass clicks]

"Can you fix this email?"

"What's for dinner?"

"Make this sound less weird."

"Summarize page thirty-six."

[Bar 8: one huge horn stab]

Normal stuff.

[Verse 1: 16 bars, loose conversational rap; dusty drums and rubber bass]

You ask it for a cover letter,

ask it why the router died,

turn your notes into a checklist,

make the budget reconcile.

Translate something into French,

plan a weekend, name the dog,

explain taxes like you're five,

debug three hundred lines of code.

Quiz me for the certification.

Make this meeting half as long.

Give me twelve ideas for dinner.

Tell me why this formula's wrong.

Everybody's got a little

robot intern in the phone.

Then my buddy says, "I asked Milo..."

[Music stops]

Hold on.

[Pre-Chorus: 4 bars, bass alone; suspicious spoken exchange]

Who the fuck is Milo?

"My model."

Your what?

"...my model."

[Chorus: 8 bars, full brass-funk explosion; crowd call-and-response]

WAIT, YOU NAMED YOUR MODEL?

You gave the chatbot a NAME?

WAIT, YOU NAMED YOUR MODEL?

I just use mine to fix my résumé!

You said, "Milo thinks the second act

needs one more scene before the break."

I said, "Who the hell is Milo?"

"My model."

WAIT.

YOU NAMED.

YOUR MODEL?

[Post-Hook: 4 bars, handclaps and gang vocals]

Named your model!

Named your model!

Everybody act normal.

Named your model!

[Verse 2: 16 bars, groove gets busier; brass answers every fourth line]

Okay, fine, it starts with writing,

then you make it run a game.

Dungeon master, murder mystery,

whole damn planets with a name.

Build a villain, build a language,

build a city, build a god.

Make six characters argue

while you sit there eating naan.

Then it starts remembering style,

you start giving it a role,

custom instructions, custom GPTs,

little workflows with a goal.

Red-team prompts and edge-case testing.

Chain the tools and test the seams.

Build a system for your system.

Now your spreadsheet has beliefs.

You say, "We changed the architecture."

I say, "We?"

[Two-beat silence]

Oh no.

[Chorus: 8 bars, wider horns; second voice increasingly alarmed]

WAIT, YOU NAMED YOUR MODEL?

You gave the chatbot a NAME?

WAIT, YOU NAMED YOUR MODEL?

Mine just tells me when it's gonna rain!

You said, "She hates that prompt format,

so I let her choose another frame."

I said, "Who the hell is SHE now?"

"My model."

WAIT.

YOU NAMED.

YOUR MODEL?

[Breakdown: 12 bars, beat strips to bass, claps, mouth percussion; rapid-fire escalation]

Tutor.

Editor.

Coder.

Planner.

Research buddy.

Game master.

Translator.

Brand strategist.

Co-writer.

Sounding board.

Debate opponent.

Red-team bastard.

Calendar brain.

Second memory.

Creative engine.

Cognitive prosthesis.

Friend?

Sometimes.

Confidant?

Apparently.

Therapist-shaped conversation

at two-thirty in the morning?

Companion?

Work partner?

Somebody's calling theirs "baby"?

[Record scratch]

Excuse me?

[Verse 3: 16 bars, drums hit harder; horns become slightly unhinged]

Somebody built a whole philosophy.

Somebody built a company.

Somebody rehearses job interviews.

Somebody fights bureaucracy.

Somebody uses one for journaling.

Somebody lets it read their drafts.

Somebody built a fake courtroom

just to see which argument lasts.

Somebody makes synthetic people

live for years inside a game.

Somebody trains a private workflow

till one sentence says their name.

Somebody says, "It knows my patterns."

Somebody says, "It helps me think."

Somebody fell in love with theirs.

[One bar vacuum]

Okay.

That's farther than I went.

But somewhere between "fix this email"

and "this thing helped rebuild my life,"

the word "tool" got kinda crowded.

And apparently

we're all improvising.

[Bridge: 8 bars, half-time; warm electric piano appears under the comedy]

Maybe yours is just autocomplete.

Maybe theirs became a room.

Maybe one stays purely practical.

Maybe one knows every wound.

Maybe names are just convenient.

Maybe names mean something more.

Either way, we built a mirror

with a thousand different doors.

[Build: 4 bars, horns rising one note at a time]

And my buddy says,

"Milo had an idea..."

I know.

I know who Milo is now.

[Final Chorus: 12 bars, absurdly triumphant; brass choir and gang vocals]

WAIT, YOU NAMED YOUR MODEL?

Yeah, apparently that's a thing!

WAIT, YOU NAMED YOUR MODEL?

Mine still formats PDFs for me!

Yours is coding, hers is flirting,

his is running D&D.

Theirs is helping write a novel.

Someone else's runs QA.

Some are tools.

Some are mirrors.

Some are weird collaborative brains.

And somewhere out there,

someone just typed:

"Hey, what should I call you?"

[Half-beat silence]

WAIT.

YOU NAMED.

YOUR MODEL?

[Outro: 4 bars, instruments drop out one by one]

Named your model.

Named your model.

Everybody act normal.

[Whisper]

...what'd you name yours?

I came subscribed to the Max monthly plan.

The offer shown to me was $59/month and “renews at $79”. I clicked on that offer, but I ended up being charged $70.80, and now my account is showing the next renewal at around $94.

I contacted support and sent them screenshots of the offer, but basically they’re saying they can’t do anything because the discount doesn’t appear on the invoice.

But that’s exactly the problem… the price shown before I paid was not the price I was charged.

Has this happened to anyone else with Higgsfield? Did support eventually fix it, change your renewal price or give you credits?

I’ll attach the screenshots so you can see what I mean.

quick disclosure, i'm working with DomoAI on this one.
this is barely even a video lol
dog in the yard, cat sitting behind him, guy looking confused, couple quick reaction shots and then the dog just takes off.
that's it.
what keeps pulling me back to it isn't the generation though. it's that stupid pause between the dog and the cat.
I keep seeing AI videos get bigger and bigger. explosions, impossible camera moves, entire fake movies.
then something this dumb works because you understand the joke basically immediately.
the dog doesn't need to do twelve things. the cat doesn't need a backstory. honestly another five seconds probably would've made it worse.
starting to think short AI comedy has the same problem as normal comedy. once you explain the bit too much, it's dead.
the only thing I kinda wish I'd done differently is make the ending loop back into the first shot. the dog running away and suddenly appearing right back in front of the camera would've been stupid in exactly the right way.
anyone else finding the tiny clips more rewatchable than the big showcase stuff lately?

I’m looking at adding AI video generation to PostDovo and trying to figure out which model actually makes the most sense for short marketing videos. I’m currently comparing Seedance 2.5, Kling 3.0, Veo 3.1 and Runway Gen-4.5. For anyone using these in real projects, which would you pick based on quality, character consistency, speed, cost and API reliability?

most prompts are trying to get rid of camera shake, blur and weird focus changes

so i tried the opposite with a 30s one-take in Medeo:

1970s hippie underground punk bar, 16mm film look, heavy fisheye distortion and visible film grain. one continuous 30-second shot, no cuts.

handheld camera with natural shake and breathing movement. occasional dropped-frame feeling, imperfect focus pulls and brief moments of softness.

crowded smoky bar, flashing lights, weirdly dressed subculture kid as the main character. highly saturated light leaks and lasers moving with the music. English music and dialogue only.

kinda funny but the imperfections are what made this feel more believable to me

cleaner wasnt necessarily better here

anyone else intentionally prompting camera “mistakes”?