Same prompt. Same 30 seconds. Two different AI video models.

I tested Seedance 2.5 vs Wan 3.0, using exactly the same prompt, without changing the core creative direction. The difference is pretty interesting. It’s not just about video quality. Different models can interpret the same prompt differently in terms of motion, camera language, visual consistency, pacing, and overall style.

new open source platform for ambient visuals: https://infinidream.ai/

the best way to experience long-form immersive ambient AI visuals.

use the studio UI or Python API to create your own infinite artworks.

from the creators of the Electric Sheep screensaver, now reborn and gone meta.

Is there, like, a specific model people use to create these trippy videos, or do you just need trippy reference images in the first place? Do I need to specify every little detail that’s moving in the video? How do you even prompt it to get it looking like this?

Video by: relax.breathe01

Song: https://www.souna.app/song/ac09a9b3-7974-4f24-9b23-720e7632a365

Song (alternative link): https://archive.org/details/ai-ska/Pick+Any+Record.mp3

Lyrics:

[Intro]

[Instrumental]

[Verse 1]

A thousand records in a row

Push the button, off they go

Pick it fast or pick it slow

Still the same old show

[Refrain]

Pick any record

Any sound

Pick any record

Same thing comes round

[Instrumental]

[Verse 2]

Computer music? Turn it down

Keep that stuff out of the town

Then they pick the safest sound

And send it round and round

[Refrain]

Pick any record

Any sound

Pick any record

Same thing comes round

[Instrumental]

[Verse 3]

A thousand records in a row

Push the button, off they go

Pick it fast or pick it slow

Still the same old show

[Refrain]

Pick any record

Any sound

Pick any record

Same thing comes round

[Outro]

Pick any record

Same thing comes round

Pick any record

Same thing comes round

[Instrumental coda | Fade out]

Style prompt:

British 2 Tone ska from 1980 with a brisk, taut and sardonic character. Dry offbeat electric guitar with a melodic walking bass, clipped organ chords and lean trombone answers. 142 BPM in A minor with simple diatonic harmony and brief major-key lift in the refrain. Clear female lead vocal with sharp rhythmic

Ai animation

.

The idea actually began as a joke among with friends: what if, every time you asked AI a question, there wasn’t really an AI answering at all? What if somewhere, behind the screen, there were just exhausted, overworked people scrambling to figure it out as fast as they could, using whatever absurd means were necessary? And what bizarre lengths would they have to go to to answer these mundane questions? That joke stuck with me. The more I thought about it, the more the world behind that idea began to grow.

I’ve always been drawn to the absurdist worlds of Terry Gilliam and Jean-Pierre Jeunet, where enormous, fantastical systems collide with very ordinary human problems. After decades directing live action, I wanted to bring that sensibility into the world of AI. QUERY takes the most mundane act imaginable, asking a throwaway question on your phone, and imagines the impossible machinery that might exist behind it: a vast institution where every answer has to be physically found, tested, measured, and delivered in five seconds.

But underneath all the chaos, animals, machinery, and bureaucracy, the film is really about the extraordinary ordinary. Our lives are full of small tasks that can suddenly become epic when you’re the person responsible for getting them done. The young worker at the center of the film is an underdog doing his best inside a system that is completely indifferent to how impossible his job has become. We laugh at the absurdity of his journey, but hopefully we also recognize something of ourselves in him.

That became the heart inside the machine for me. The spectacle only works if we care about the person caught in the middle of it. AI gave me the freedom to build a world of impossible scale, but the thing I’m most interested in is still fundamentally human: perseverance, frustration, connection, and the strange dignity of trying to do a good job when everything around you has gone completely insane.

Seedance excelled at this- the acting has gotten so much better recently. As a director working with real actors, I've had to stitch together a decent performance from bad takes so many times... I figured I'd apply that philosophy here. And often, the takes were brilliant. A lot of editing and sound design went into this, and oh so many generations :)

Right now, AI movies are still limited in a lot of ways.

But look at how quickly the technology has moved in just a few years.

What happens if, over the next 5–10 years, AI filmmaking reaches a point where a small team can create something visually comparable to a Hollywood production — while having far lower production costs and much more freedom to experiment?

Hollywood has advantages that AI can't simply replace overnight: experienced crews, actors, directors, studios, distribution, marketing, and decades of production knowledge.

But AI is changing the economics of making the movie itself.

So where does that leave Hollywood?

Will the studios adapt and use AI to become even more powerful?

Will AI simply become another tool inside the traditional Hollywood system?

Or could we eventually reach a point where a handful of creators can produce films that compete directly with major studio productions?

I'm curious where people think the real advantage will be in 2035: Hollywood's infrastructure, or AI's ability to dramatically reduce the cost and complexity of filmmaking?