Interview Bank

Build an AI Short-Drama Production Pipeline With Agents in 14 Days

D3 Character Consistency: Character Sheets, Reference Images, and Style Locking — Keeping the Same Person the Same Person in Every Shot

• Does fixing the random seed solve character consistency? What does a seed actually lock?固定随机种子能解决角色一致性吗？它到底锁住了什么？

  Common in ChinaCommon overseasIntermediate#image-generation#reproducibility

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. This is a yes/no trap dressed as a concept question; answering 'yes' ends it. The hinge is 'what does it actually lock' — they are testing whether you separate reproducibility from consistency.
  2. Define it first: a seed is the random starting point of sampling. With the model, prompt and other parameters unchanged, the same seed returns the same image, so what it locks is reproducibility.
  3. Then explain why that is not enough here: every shot has a different prompt because action, scene and shot size all change. Change the prompt and the sampling path changes with it, so the same seed yields a different person. A seed is a reproducibility switch, not a consistency switch.
  4. Do not dismiss it though. It earns its place twice: single-variable debugging, where you change one word and watch the image move; and stacked with a reference image, where the reference holds the face and the seed holds the remaining degrees of freedom so a whole set looks shot on the same day.
  5. One production note: for a seed to actually reproduce anything, turn the prompt optimizer off. It defaults to on, rewrites your prompt server-side, and you never see the rewrite — which destroys reproducibility.
  6. Expect the follow-up: is seed semantics the same across vendors? No guarantee — switching vendor or even model version can make the same seed produce something else, which is one more reason to keep a provider abstraction layer.

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 这是一道判断题伪装成的概念题，答「能」直接出局。题眼是「到底锁住了什么」——面试官在测你有没有把复现和一致这两件事分开。
  2. 先给定义：seed 是采样的随机起点。在模型、提示词、其余参数都不变的前提下，同一个 seed 会给出同一张图，所以它锁住的是**可复现性**。
  3. 再说为什么在短剧场景里不够用：每一镜的提示词天然不同，动作、场景、景别都在变。提示词一变，采样路径就换了，同一个 seed 出来的是完全不同的人。所以 seed 是复现开关，不是一致性开关。
  4. 但不要把它说成没用。它在两个地方非常值钱：调试时做单变量对照，只改一个词看画面怎么变；以及跟参考图叠加使用，参考图管脸，seed 管其余自由度的采样起点，两者一起才让整组图像同一天在同一个棚里拍的。
  5. 生产视角补一句：想让 seed 真的可复现，必须把提示词优化开关关掉。那个开关默认是开的，它会在服务端改写你的提示词，改写结果你看不到，可复现性也就没了。
  6. 可以预期的追问：那不同厂商的 seed 语义一样吗？答案是不保证，换厂商甚至换模型版本都可能让同一个 seed 出别的图，所以 seed 不能作为跨厂商的一致性依据——这也是要有一层 provider 抽象的原因之一。

  Key points

  • No. A seed locks reproducibility: same model, same prompt, same other parameters plus same seed returns the same image
  • Every shot in a drama has a different prompt, and a changed prompt voids the seed, so it is not a consistency mechanism
  • Its real value is single-variable debugging, and stacking with a reference image — the reference holds the face, the seed holds the rest
  • For a seed to reproduce anything you must disable the server-side prompt optimizer, which is on by default and rewrites your input
  • Seed semantics do not carry across vendors or model versions, so a seed cannot underpin cross-provider consistency

  答题要点

  • 不能。seed 锁的是可复现性：模型、提示词与其余参数都不变时，同一个 seed 给出同一张图
  • 短剧每一镜的提示词天然不同，提示词一变 seed 就失效，所以它不是一致性手段
  • 它真正的用处是单变量调试，以及与参考图叠加——参考图管脸，seed 管其余自由度的采样起点
  • 要让 seed 可复现，必须关掉服务端的提示词优化开关，它默认开启且会改写你的输入
  • seed 语义不跨厂商也不跨模型版本，不能作为跨 provider 的一致性依据

D6 The Editing Bay: Assembling Footage Into One Vertical Cut With ffmpeg

• What are the risks of letting an LLM generate ffmpeg command lines directly, and how would you redesign it?如果让大模型直接生成 ffmpeg 命令来合成视频，会有什么风险？你会怎么改造这个设计？

  Common in ChinaCommon overseasDeep dive#prompt-injection#pipeline-design#reproducibility

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. This probes where you draw the line between model judgment and real execution. Saying 'injection risk' is the passing bar; missing reproducibility and debuggability signals you have not run a generative pipeline in production.
  2. The chain is short: model output is untrusted input, untrusted input into a shell is command injection, model output is also nondeterministic, nondeterministic commands mean the same input yields different files, and debugging then requires guessing what the model was thinking.
  3. The fix is not 'validate and forward'. Move the model: let it emit only structured choices drawn from an enum you fixed in advance (transition type, crop strategy, which shot the cover comes from), and compute the command yourself from the timeline with a pure function.
  4. Add the concrete detail: invoke external binaries with an argument array (execFile, not exec) so escaping stops being a class of bug, then whitelist-validate the model's choices and fall back to a default instead of erroring.
  5. Expect the follow-up 'so what is the model still good for here'. Answer: taste calls — tone, cover selection, whether to use a transition. Judgment to the model, execution to the program. That boundary generalizes to any agent with side effects.

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 这题考的是「Agent 到底能不能碰真实执行」这条边界，区分度在于你会不会主动说出安全之外的两条。只答「有注入风险」是及格线，答不出可复现与可调试就说明没在生产里跑过生成式流水线。
  2. 推导链很短：模型的输出是不可信输入 → 不可信输入进 shell 就是命令注入 → 而且模型输出天然不确定 → 不确定的命令意味着同样的输入产出不同的文件 → 排查时你还得先猜模型当时为什么那么写。三条风险分别对应安全、可复现、可调试。
  3. 改造的方向不是「加一层校验就放行」，而是把模型挪到另一个位置：让它只输出结构化的选择项，且每一项都从你定死的枚举里选（转场类型、裁切策略、封面取哪一镜），命令本身由你自己的纯函数从时间轴算出来。
  4. 补一句更硬的落地细节：调用外部程序不要走 shell 字符串，用参数数组（execFile 而不是 exec），从根上消掉转义问题；再加一层白名单校验，模型给出枚举外的值就退回默认值而不是报错。
  5. 可预期的追问是「那模型在这一环还有什么用」。答：用在需要审美判断的地方——情绪偏冷还是偏暖、封面选哪一镜、要不要转场。判断交给模型，执行留给程序，这是所有会产生副作用的 Agent 场景的通用分界。

  Key points

  • Three risks in order: command injection, non-reproducible output, undebuggable failures. Naming only the first is not enough.
  • Turn the model into a parameter filler: structured choices constrained to a predefined enum.
  • Generate the command from the timeline with a pure function, invoked via an argument array rather than a shell string.
  • Whitelist-validate and fall back to defaults for out-of-enum values instead of surfacing an error.
  • One-line boundary: the model decides, the program executes.

  答题要点

  • 三条风险按严重度排：命令注入、结果不可复现、报错不可调试；只说第一条不够。
  • 改造成参数填充器：模型输出结构化选择项，取值必须落在预定义枚举里。
  • 命令由程序的纯函数从时间轴生成，用参数数组调用而不是拼 shell 字符串。
  • 白名单校验兜底，枚举外的值退回默认，而不是把错误抛给用户。
  • 分界线一句话：模型负责判断，程序负责执行。