> I don't see the point of JSX, seems to decrease type safety
JSX compiles to typed function calls. The type safety is in the component definitions, not the syntax.
The real question is whether video composition is actually hierarchical enough to benefit from JSX. For simple clips, probably overkill. But once you're layering talking heads, captions, b-roll, and transitions, the tree structure starts making sense.
The hardest part isn't the generation. It's the orchestration. Caching, retry logic, stitching outputs from multiple providers. A declarative layer that handles that automatically is genuinely useful.
How many software engineers are also cinematographers or directors?
I know that AI will democratize these roles and everyone can be a director, but why does it make sense to use JSX as the means to do that? It would require people to learn a new skill.
There must be a better abstraction for creating video that provides the granularity of providing direction to individual objects in a scene that doesn't require someone to understand JSX.
I think the answer is in the tagline: AI Agent writes JSX, you get videos.
Sounds like a decent approach for today. LLMs are overtrained on JSX (Claude in particular, due to Artifacts feature IIRC being originally based on React), which makes them particularly good at translating from natural language to JSX, and that in turns makes JSX a decent choice for a structured description format.
JSX is just ugly Lisp anyway, so it's not half bad a choice for something that's structured, general-purpose, flexible and well-supported by tooling.
This is very cool. And very timely. Recently had a discussion on whether we wanted to build out a new video pipeline through weavy or something more declarative like this. Surprised that there don't seem to be many similar tools. I suppose most folks either use weavy or just chain API calls. JSX is an interesting choice too.
If you told me this was satire, I might respond that it's too on-the-nose. I really doubt that Spotify would be happy that their logo is front-and-center here.
JSX is a convenient notation for structuring HTML that is created with React and similar frameworks. You are imposing a markup hierarchy on attributes that are not inherently hierarchical while giving examples of deceptive weight loss scam slop.
In the past I would say you should be ashamed of yourself but now I don't bother.
Not sure if you are missing the point or hitting on the actual point.
That is an example. Given the amount of AI-generated scam content exactly like that (and worse, have you seen the ED ones?) on the internet today, creating something in the same vein seems harmless.
On the other hand, unleashing the ability to generate massive numbers of variations cheaply, and experimenting to find the optimal mixture of insecurity, fear and avarice to exploit....that's dystopian. But Madison Avenue actually got most of that figured out long ago.
JSX compiles to typed function calls. The type safety is in the component definitions, not the syntax.
The real question is whether video composition is actually hierarchical enough to benefit from JSX. For simple clips, probably overkill. But once you're layering talking heads, captions, b-roll, and transitions, the tree structure starts making sense.
The hardest part isn't the generation. It's the orchestration. Caching, retry logic, stitching outputs from multiple providers. A declarative layer that handles that automatically is genuinely useful.
reply