I found this funny as well, but on reflection I think the author is talking about the specific effect of changing the seed but not the prompt. To me it highlights a weakness of AI imagery — no intent, no progression, no story.
Eh, yet. I can see where the prompt just gets extended to, "in a hilarious series events in the style of buster keaton" and all of a sudden your vampire-toothed anime furry in cyberpunk clothes is flying down the side of a building, being saved at the very end by a sunshade they flop into. But I don't know if I'm going to live long enough where AI makes new Buster Keaton shorts using commonplace elements around them in new and exciting ways. Like would AI know that you can hang from the hands of a clock, which move over the course of a day? to me that's some creativity that was years ahead of its time.
Now that I've attempted to predict the far-from-now future, I'm sure we'll see this in 6 months.
So they're taking about "animation"?
This and image-to-image generation (more in a moment)
A reader will see there's more writing, you don't need the parenthetical.