Veo 3 and Imagen 4, and a new tool for filmmaking called Flow

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Reactions to Veo 3 / Imagen 4 Demos

  • Many find the tech leap impressive, especially synced audio+video and Flow’s UX; some Reddit examples are called “jaw-dropping.”
  • Others are underwhelmed: clips still read as “AI” (glow, smoothness, odd motion, weak physics), with uncanny-valley humans and inconsistent environments.
  • Owl/moon clip, old man, and origami piece trigger mixed reactions—impressive rendering but eerie, aggressive, or off in subtle ways.
  • Several note these are cherry‑picked seconds, not evidence that the tech can sustain long, coherent scenes.

From Clips to Full Movies / Oscars Debate

  • Optimists predict fully AI‑generated feature films (possibly Oscar‑winning) within ~5 years; skeptics think Academy politics and current model weaknesses make that unlikely.
  • Skeptics argue: writing, editing, sound design, and direction still need heavy human intervention; “entirely AI” collapses as soon as you allow that intervention.
  • Some expect AI to first win in technical or music categories (score/song) rather than Best Picture or Screenplay.

Hollywood, Economics, and Personalization

  • One camp: this “fixes” Hollywood’s problems—no expensive stars, unions, or on‑set drama; endless cheap sequels and IP recycling fit current studio incentives.
  • Counter‑camp: if anyone can generate movies at home, Hollywood’s centrality erodes; future may be ultra‑personalized content streams via platforms like YouTube/TikTok.
  • Discussion of actors licensing likenesses, eventual fully synthetic celebrities, and manufactured off‑screen drama as part of the product.

Tools, Access, and Model Quality

  • Confusion around how to actually use Veo 3 / Imagen 4; Google’s product/rollout UX seen as opaque, with country and quota restrictions.
  • Comparisons to Sora, Runway, Wan/Hunyuan: general sense that big proprietary models are ahead in video, but open tools plus composable workflows (e.g., ComfyUI, ControlNet) still matter.
  • Prompt adherence remains a major weakness; community benchmarks show Imagen 4 not clearly ahead of Imagen 3 and behind some competitors on strict specification following.

Creativity, Authorship, and Gatekeeping

  • Deep, polarized debate:
    • One side: AI is just another tool; real creativity lies in ideas, prompt craft, iteration, and editing. It democratizes filmmaking, illustration, and animation for those lacking money or training.
    • Other side: outsourcing production to opaque models trained on unconsenting artists’ work hollows out craft, floods the commons with derivative “slop,” and erodes the meaningful struggle that makes art and skill development fulfilling.
  • Some argue future “directors” of AI productions will still need strong vision and taste; others say current AI “users” are more clients than creators, with the model as de facto artist.

Jobs, Society, and Non‑Creative Work

  • Broad anxiety about job loss in VFX, animation, illustration, and broader creative sectors; comparisons to Luddites, human “computers,” and earlier automation waves.
  • Several argue the real problem is economic structure, not technology: productivity gains accrue to capital without adequate safety nets.
  • Others wish AI progress targeted mundane physical work (robots doing dishes, construction, care tasks) rather than saturating screens with more media.

Misinformation, Deepfakes, and Porn

  • Concern that realistic AI video plus cheap credits will supercharge scams, fake news, and harassment (especially deepfaked sexual content and minors).
  • Some note we’re already seeing AI clips pass as real on TikTok/YouTube; future trust in video evidence and news is expected to deteriorate.
  • A minority argue that AI‑generated CSAM might displace real abuse material; others see this as ethically and legally fraught.

Naming, Branding, and Cultural Friction

  • The “Flow” name irritates some, seen as trading on the recent Oscar‑winning open‑source animated film Flow and, more broadly, on the same creatives AI may displace.
  • More generally, anger at big labs: perceived as appropriating artists’ work, firing ethics researchers, and pushing tools that benefit studios and platforms while harming working creatives.