与「CHANGE_CAM」相关的搜索结果

We recently introduced Gemini Omni Flash, our first model in the new Omni family. With Omni, you can easily create and edit high-quality videos from text, image, video or audio references. We recently gave developers access to it, and since then, we’ve seen builders all over the world use Omni to create a range of personal and professional projects. Here are some of our favorite ways we’ve seen builders use Omni so far ↓ 📽️ Switch angles and perspectives You can change camera angles, switch environments, and apply cinematic zooms — all without losing the thread of your original scene. Builder @LexnLin took full advantage of this capability, capturing a woman standing in the middle of a city from about 20 different perspectives. You see her from different angles: up close and far away, head on and in profile, from above, and from below. Some shots zoom in, while others hold still. And the background shifts, too.

We recently introduced Gemini Omni Flash, our first model in the new Omni family. With Omni, you can easily create and edit high-quality videos from text, image, video or audio references. We recently gave developers access to it, and since then, we’ve seen builders all over the world use Omni to create a range of personal and professional projects. Here are some of our favorite ways we’ve seen builders use Omni so far ↓ 📽️ Switch angles and perspectives You can change camera angles, switch environments, and apply cinematic zooms — all without losing the thread of your original scene. Builder @LexnLin took full advantage of this capability, capturing a woman standing in the middle of a city from about 20 different perspectives. You see her from different angles: up close and far away, head on and in profile, from above, and from below. Some shots zoom in, while others hold still. And the background shifts, too.

Here is the prompt on how I did this edit The edit was done with @TopviewAIhq web I edit the prompt with Claude Edit @Video1. Keep the original video exactly as is: the same person, face, body, clothing, pose, motion, timing, camera movement, and framing. Do not alter his movement or appearance in any way. Change 1 (background): Replace the entire background with the police mugshot height-chart wall from @Image1: gray backdrop with horizontal height lines and measurements. Keep the chart fixed behind him in perspective, and let it shift naturally with the camera movement. Match the lighting on him to the new setting. Change 2 (held object): Replace the paper he is holding with the black letterboard sign from @Image2 (white letters reading "BROKE CONTENT CREATOR", silver frame). He holds it the same way the paper was held, in the same hand position, at the same angle, and it follows every movement of his hands. Keep the text sharp and readable throughout. Change 3 (camera flash): As he turns, add bright white camera flashes hitting him, like a police booking photo being taken. Short, sharp flashes that briefly light up his face and the sign, with subtle overexposure, then fade back to normal. Style: realistic, cinematic, gritty booking-photo look. No changes to the subject's identity, outfit, or motion. Keep the original video's duration and pacing.

AI Is Moving Beyond “Generating Videos” — Toward “Generating Worlds” Over the past two years, AI video models have advanced at an astonishing pace. From Runway and Pika to Sora and Veo, AI-generated videos have become increasingly realistic and more consistent with the physical laws of the real world. Many people believe the next objective is simply to generate videos that are longer, sharper, and more lifelike. But if we take a step back, we can see that the real transformation is not happening in video itself. It is happening in world models. What Is a World Model? In 1943, psychologist Kenneth Craik proposed an idea that would influence artificial intelligence research for decades. He argued that the human brain does not merely react to the outside world. Instead, it maintains an internal model of how the world works. Because we have this internal model, we can predict the outcome of an action before we actually take it. Before crossing a road, we estimate whether a car will pass by. Before catching a ball, we predict its trajectory. These abilities come from continuously simulating the world in our minds, rather than relying entirely on trial and error. This idea later became known by a more formal term: World Model. A world model does not describe a single image or a fixed video clip. It is an internal representation capable of continuously simulating the rules and dynamics of the real world. Why Is AI Research Turning Toward World Models? Because predicting “what comes next” is becoming increasingly central to how AI systems work. Language models predict the next token. Image models predict the next step in the denoising process. Video models predict the next frame. A world model, however, attempts to predict something broader: What should the world look like in the next moment? In 2018, David Ha and Jürgen Schmidhuber proposed in their paper World Models that an intelligent agent could first learn a model of the world, and then use that internal model to plan its actions. The Dreamer series later demonstrated that many complex tasks could be learned by training agents inside an “imagined world.” At the same time, the development of video models such as Sora and Veo led researchers to another realization: A model capable of continuously generating video has already learned, at least implicitly, many of the rules governing the real world. As a result, these two research directions have gradually begun to converge. But Video Is Not Yet a World This is where the distinction is often misunderstood. For a world model to support meaningful real-time interaction, it must solve several critical problems. Most video models today are essentially answering one question: What should the next frame look like? A true world model needs to answer much more: What happens if I take one step forward? If I walk behind a building and then return, will the building still be there? If I suddenly change the camera angle, will the entire space remain consistent? If I enter a command such as: “Summon a dragon.” Will the world respond immediately? In other words, a world model must do more than generate content. It must understand space. It must understand time. It must understand causality. And it must understand interaction. Moving from watching to participating is where the real difficulty of world models begins. World Models Are Entering the Interactive Era One of the latest attempts in this direction is Alaya World, recently open-sourced by Alaya World, or @alayastd. Instead of generating a fixed video clip, it generates a world that users can explore in real time. Users can begin with text, an image, or a video, enter the generated scene, move freely through it, and introduce new prompts at any moment during generation. The world responds immediately. According to the publicly released information, Alaya World provides: Real-time streaming generation at 720p and 24 FPS Stable continuous exploration for more than one minute The ability to switch prompts and trigger skills or events during generation Model weights and inference code released under the Apache 2.0 License Training code and datasets planned for future release What makes these capabilities important is not simply the technical specifications. It is that the generated “world” can now support continuous interaction. The official demo shows that users can genuinely control, transform, and explore the generated environment. AI Is Evolving From a Tool Into an Environment Over the past few years, most discussions around AI have focused on content generation. Generating text. Generating images. Generating videos. But world models raise a fundamentally different question: Can AI generate an environment that people can inhabit, explore, and continuously evolve? If the answer is yes, the impact will extend far beyond video generation. Game development, robotics training, embodied intelligence, digital twins, virtual production, and many other fields could be transformed by the development of world models. World models are still at a very early stage. Yet from Craik’s proposal of an internal mental model more than eighty years ago to the emergence of today’s interactive world-generation systems, a clear evolutionary path is beginning to take shape. Perhaps what AI is ultimately learning has never been limited to images, videos, or language. Perhaps it is learning the world itself. References GitHub: Technical Report:

X AI ALGORITHM UPDATE (BIG ONE) 🚨 X updated their open source algorithm yesterday and the biggest number in it is gone: copy link went from 20 to 0 points. Small accounts should focus on: posts people like, reply to and stay on (so stop counting on link copies) tl;dr: - on Nov 13 X's open source code set the score for copying a post's link to 0 - copy link: 20 → 0 - it was the top score in the whole system, 4x a reply - the code also names a "copy link bait" spam check - likes (0.708), replies (5) and DM shares (5) didn't move full details: - The number that's gone Since I started reading X's open source code in August, one number sat at the top: 20, for someone tapping share and copying your post's link. Nothing else came close. As of the Nov 13 release, it's 0. X still guesses who'll copy your link. It just multiplies that guess by 0 now. X didn't explain it. It's just what the code says. (I check the open source algo daily with Claude and share updates with you) - Cross it off your list My own checklist called copy link the biggest number. Last week's post said it too. It was true then. It isn't now. If you saved that list, cross that line out. - The "copy link bait" check X's code now mentions a spam check called "copy link bait". In the code it adds a spam label to the post, and that label already keeps a post out of strangers' feeds. It only shows up in a test, so I can't see if it's running or how strict it is. My read: X saw people baiting link copies, so it turned the score off and built something to catch the bait. That's a read, the code doesn't say why. - Why that matters if you're small If your plan was posts people copy the link to, that plan now earns 0 in X's ranking. A copied link can still bring people in from outside X. It just doesn't push your post up anymore. What still pays: likes at 0.708 (the highest ever), people staying on your post, replies at 5 and back and forth with mutuals at 20. - Also new: photo and video tags If a post has a spam label, people you tag in its photo or video who don't follow you won't get notified. Same idea as last week's rule for replies. - What didn't change Every other score. Your new posts still get their extra push in the first 2 hours and first 200 views, and early likes still pick which one gets it. Here's a recap of what you should be doing: - aim for likes, replies and time spent, the copy link score is gone - a DM share still earns 5, same as a reply or a quote - likes sit at 0.708, never higher - time on your post keeps counting at its best rate yet - 10+ seconds after someone taps in adds 0.385 - write your replies yourself, under big accounts most of all - give people a reason to hang around your profile - in videos the opening seconds carry it, an open alone scores 0 - posts read to the end help X find you strangers - smaller accounts (below 50K) get a shot at a spot near 16 for a fresh original - early likes decide which new post gets that spot - post when your followers are awake, the push lasts 2 hours and 200 views - mutuals going back and forth earn 20, so follow back the regulars - only your originals ever get shown to strangers - like 1 and like 32 each unlock another way to reach strangers - one strong post per feed, your second only counts 62% - clips longer than 10 seconds for the video lists - a post likely to win you a follow gets +4 - give your pinned post a look, it can affect the whole account What you should NOT be doing: - counting on copy link shares, they score 0 now - baiting link copies, the code names a spam check for exactly that - a spam label also stops your photo tags reaching non-followers - AI-written replies under big accounts, "llm slop" is a flag X uses - copy-paste replies, labeled ones skip non-followers' notifications - chasing taps, 0.274 and dropping - drifting off your topic, each probable "not interested" takes 53.07 away - videos people open and leave, the open itself earns 0 - posting at 3am, it wastes the 2 hour push - expecting replies and reposts to reach strangers - an insult label, it hides that post from non-followers - earning a misinfo or low quality label, which adds a warning and locks strangers out of liking or sharing - 3 adult photos or videos among your latest 5 posts, that puts a label on you - forgetting videos get rechecked at 64 and 512 likes - one account label and strangers stop seeing you - pinning a link to a site X rates badly, that can mean a label for a week - posting your own old words again risks the copypasta flag - a low quality link plus tagged strangers reads as spam - bait for engagement, big or small it gets a label - several posts back to back, they split the same feed - hashtag piles, they do nothing - bookmarks for reach, they score 0 - hoping a 3 day old post still lands in For You, it stops at 2 days

13M followers It’s easy to look at that number and forget there was a time when almost nobody knew who CZ was. Back in 2013, he discovered #Bitcoin# through a poker game One conversation changed his direction He studied Bitcoin…He believed in it…He took a massive risk, even selling his apartment to go all in on the industry he believed would change the world Then came @Binance in 2017 No billion dollar brand No millions of followers Just a vision, a small team, and the belief that crypto should be accessible to everyone The rest became history Today, 13 million people follow @cz_binance But to me, the most powerful part isn’t the 13M, It’s remembering the journey from one person discovering Bitcoin and then building #Binance# to becoming one of the most recognized faces in crypto 🫡 Respect, CZ ::

I find it funny that some people got hung up on Starship not having gone orbital before Flight 14 when in the grand scheme of things it was completely arbitrary in terms of performance. The 19ish second burn only added about 91 m/s of velocity (a 1.2% increase in velocity) This capability has been physically capable since Flight 6 which demonstrated a single Raptor relight in space. Heck, Flight 13’s burn was about 14 seconds, but intentionally oriented to primarily do a plane change instead of a prograde insertion burn for continued safety. Any of the relights COULD have done the orbital insertion burn, the duration was not of any special technical capability. The reason Starship didn’t go orbital until Flight 14 is probably what we should applaud them for the most… SAFETY. Their methodical approach to getting good data and going one step at a time while hucking the single most massive object ever put into space proves they weren’t just doing things haphazardly, despite the occasional narrative from the outside. While it’s easy to compare Starship to vehicles like SLS or Vulcan or New Glenn, the reality is the focus hasn’t been on orbit, it’s been all on the “downhill” side of that. Safe and targeted de-orbit, clean reentry, targeted and soft splashdown. That’s the part that has (almost) never been done before. And here I do have to add a little Space Shuttle admiration for figuring out a lot of these things on its first flight in 1981 (although it came a bit close to not being successful). Pretty amazing there was a vehicle of similar scale capable of such precise deorbit and reentry that it landed on a runway with no go-around capabilities. Crazy. But Starship is well on a path to absolutely leap-frog the Space Shuttle in terms of performance (already over double and someday 6 fold) and hopefully in terms of full and rapid reuse. I hope we see the latter part speed up even more now that orbit has been demonstrated. Exciting times ahead!!! Keep going @spacex @elonmusk

Eight democracies. One message to Beijing. Australia, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, South Korea and the UK issued a joint statement on September 22 opposing any unilateral change to the Taiwan Strait status quo. It came out of a meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, where officials called today's security environment more volatile than a year ago. Their language was direct: "We encourage dialogue and oppose any unilateral attempts to change the status quo across the Taiwan Strait." The same day, the US, Japan and South Korea issued a separate statement making the same point, and also backing Taiwan's participation in international organizations. Taiwan's foreign ministry welcomed the statement and said it would keep building self-defense and deepen ties with democratic partners.

The World is Changing: AI For Creativity By Jeffrey Katzenberg A few months ago, I sat in my office in Silicon Valley and watched as a tech founder showed me something extraordinary. On the screen was a fully realized, beautifully lit, well-composed animated scene. It was stunning and it made me feel exactly what I felt in 1986 watching Luxo Jr. That was the first time I watched a computer-animated 3D character take a breath and seem, against all reason, to have life. It left me in awe. Later that day, I received a text from an artist I've known for thirty years, 350 miles to the south, in the city where I spent most of my career. After seeing a similar video, she texted: "Is this the end of us?" My answer was, "Certainly not.” I have spent the better part of the last decade in Silicon Valley, but the heart of my career has been in Hollywood. Being deeply connected to both worlds means I have deep loyalties to each and a responsibility to speak honestly to both. In 2023, I said that these new AI tools would cut the time and cost of producing world-class animation by as much as ninety percent within three years. Some colleagues were alarmed, many were furious. There is growing fear and resistance surrounding AI within the creative community. I deeply understand it, because I've spent countless hours walking through animation studios watching gifted artists bent over their desks, rebuilding a single second of film for the tenth time because the ninth version wasn't quite right. I've sat in screening rooms where four years of people's labor played out in minutes, and I knew the name of every person that had spent countless hours bringing those images to life. The creative process is a calling, there's really no other way to describe it. From the outside some see resistance. From the inside, it is love. People do not fight this hard for things they don't care about. The pushback coming out of Hollywood represents the collective effort of people who are deeply passionate about their craft. Is History Repeating Itself? The history here is more complicated than either side may realize. In 1906, the most famous composer in America, John Philip Sousa, published an essay titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music." He warned that the phonograph would become "a substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul." Sousa's fight was not really about the machine, it was about money. The machines were playing his compositions, and the men who built them weren't paying him a cent. His campaign helped create the Copyright Act of 1909. He did not stop the technology. He changed the terms under which it could use his work. A hundred years ago, sound came to the movies. We remember it now as a miracle, and it was. What we forget is who paid for it. Before sound, tens of thousands of musicians made their living in the orchestra pits of movie houses, scoring every film live, every night, in towns all over the world. When the soundtrack arrived, the work of one composer and one orchestra was recorded for a film that went into thousands of theaters. The union fought back with everything it had, taking out newspaper ads across the country warning against the menace of "canned music," one of them showing a mechanical man tearing the strings out of a harp while an angel wept. They were not fools, and they were not Luddites. They were right. Those pit jobs did not come back. And yet (this is the part we have to be brave enough to admit), sound gave us the movie musical, the modern score, sfx, sound design, audio engineering, and an art form vastly larger than the one it disrupted. And it helped keep Hollywood in the forefront of world entertainment for the rest of the century and into the next. The loss was real. And yet the art form expanded. This is a story that has been told over and over again. To resist technology is to risk irrelevance. Just look at Kodak or Blockbuster. To embrace technology is to open doors of new possibility. Just consider Apple and Netflix. What I Learned From Walt Disney In the mid-1980s, I was tapped to lead Disney's animation division at a moment when the studio was at an inflection point. Animation wasn't just another business unit. It was the soul of the company, a medium revered because of Walt's genius and his passion. But the production system was cumbersome and unforgiving. A single movie was 125,000 individual hand-drawn and painted cels, photographed one frame at a time. Every revision carried a cost measured in months. These degrees of difficulty shaped the kinds of stories we could tell. We found our way forward in an unexpected place: Walt himself. The Disney archives held astonishing recordings of Walt explaining his creative process. His own writings. His notes and storyboards. Work product captured at every stage of his process. This was truly a gift. Listening, reading, sitting with the work itself, we heard him talk about character, about emotion, about how an audience feels when a character truly comes alive. He talked about making bold choices and refining a scene until it genuinely moved people. We didn't hear a word about pencils or paintbrushes. In fact, Walt was famous for being a technologist, forever hunting for state-of-the-art tools, often inventing them himself to achieve the images he saw in his head. But he never defined animation by the tools. He defined it by whether the audience believed the character. His principles were timeless. The tools were not. That realization changed everything. We co-developed the Computer Animation Production System (CAPS) with a young Northern California company called Pixar, replacing hand-painted cels with CGI. In The Little Mermaid, the final scene shimmered with a dimensionality and light that the old process simply couldn't achieve. In Beauty and the Beast, the ballroom sequence moved with a cinematic sweep that placed the audience inside the emotion of the moment. In Aladdin, the Cave of Wonders felt vast and alive, and the Magic Carpet became an intricate, compelling character all its own. In The Lion King, the stampede carried a scale and intensity that raised the emotional stakes beyond anything we'd done before. Technology didn't diminish the craft, it expanded the canvas. It gave artists more room to create. A decade later, the canvas expanded again. When Disney released Pixar's Toy Story, it wasn't simply a technical milestone. It was proof that a fully computer-animated film could carry real emotional weight, that it could make audiences laugh, cry, and believe. At DreamWorks, we made the difficult decision to sunset hand-drawn animation and become a fully computer-animated studio. It was the right thing to do, but it was not without pain. It cost talented people their place in an industry where they had worked their whole lives. Some made the leap to the new tools and did the finest work of their careers. Some never did. Tools are never the point. The instruments change with every generation. What endures is taste and imagination. The magical ability to make an audience feel. One of the greatest storytellers of our generation, George Lucas, succinctly captured the eternal essence of this issue: “It’s not the how, it’s the why.” A Distinction With a Difference I asked one of the leading AI models a question that has been challenging me for months. What is the difference between reasoning and creating? Its answer changed how I think about almost everything happening in this industry. It said . . . Reasoning and creating are two distinct cognitive modes, though they also work together. Reasoning is fundamentally evaluative and analytical. It operates on what already exists: facts, premises, evidence. It moves toward a conclusion that was in a sense already implied by the input. Reasoning is constrained by logic and truth. Its goal is to arrive somewhere correct, not to invent somewhere new. Creating is fundamentally generative. It produces something that didn't exist before. And crucially, there's no single right answer waiting to be found. A blank page has infinite valid responses. Creation involves choices that can't be fully justified by logic alone. Taste, intuition and vision fill the gap where deduction runs out. Reasoning is what Silicon Valley has been perfecting. Creating is what Hollywood has been practicing for more than a century. AI today operates almost entirely on the reasoning side of the line. It can deduce, evaluate, optimize, and pattern-match brilliantly. And while it can create, there is a real distinction to being creative. What it doesn’t yet have is those things that make us human: empathy, devotion, serendipity, the kind of creativity that comes from a person trying to say something only they could say. When the bot generates a piece of art, it is not trying to communicate anything. It is statistics, not soul; it is emulating things that have been done. By contrast, human creativity isn’t about repeating patterns of zeros and ones; it is about doing something new. One day, AI may close this gap. Three years ago, the leaders building AI would have called what they are achieving today, improbable, if not impossible. Impossible is no longer improbable. Today, the line between reasoning and creating is real. Even the leading technologists acknowledge we are not there yet. There is no scientific path to crossing this divide that anyone in the field can articulate today. Understanding that gap is where we will find common ground. A Path Forward In 2016, I closed one chapter in Hollywood with the sale of DreamWorks and opened another in Northern California, co-founding WndrCo. We’ve backed more than 50 founders building the next generation of technology and watched how breakthroughs in Silicon Valley emerge, first as experiments, then as platforms, and finally as infrastructure that reshapes entire industries. It's worth remembering that the last great revolution in animation also came from the north. Pixar was a Northern California company, forged not in the conventions of the Hollywood studio system, but in the technological breakthroughs of Silicon Valley. I've spent years on both sides of this bridge. For sure, I don’t have all the answers (take Quibi, for one!). But, from my past and present vantage points of my long career, here is what I see . . . Brilliant people in Northern California building this technology have made something extraordinary. They have earned the right for the rest of us to be, if not believers, at least optimistic that what comes next will be remarkable. But they have not made an artist. The tools are powerful, but they are not what makes a story matter. That knowledge lives 350 miles to the south, inside people whose life's work has informed the very models you are building. The right path forward includes them by design, with credit, with consent, and with compensation. Build this with the storytellers. Not on top of them. Taste is not something that can be synthesized, it is uniquely human. At the same time, Hollywood needs to accept that AI is not going away. The energy they are spending trying to make it disappear is energy they are not spending deciding the terms on which it will exist. And the terms are everything. The north needs something from it that they cannot build and cannot buy: creativity. The kind that takes a blank page and conjures a single right answer where there was none and has held audiences for a century. Without it, the most powerful reasoning engine ever invented will still be missing the only thing that makes a story worth telling. The artists who learn to wield these new instruments will do things the engineers never dreamed of. They always have. Edison invented the motion picture but made terrible movies. It took Chaplin, Lloyd, Keaton and so many others to make movies emotional. Now, the canvas is about to expand yet again. We should decide now that we intend to paint on it. There are so many valuable lessons in history. This has happened many times before, and it was never settled by the technology. It was settled by the terms. Sousa did not stop the phonograph; he helped write the law that made sure composers got paid. And two years ago, when the writers and the actors walked out, they were fighting for the very things Sousa was fighting for in 1906. Consent, compensation, the basic recognition that human creative work has a price that must be paid. The terms of that fight are still being negotiated, but the principle is older than any of us. The tools-versus-no-tools argument is a trap. First, we must all agree that there should be terms. Then we can have the crucial debate about what fairness requires. What I Learned From Steve Jobs Years ago, Steve Jobs said, "It's in Apple's DNA that technology alone is not enough. It's technology married with the liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our hearts sing." He was describing a device. But he could just as easily have been describing this tale of two cities. What I See Coming Soon As the barriers and the costs come down, more films will get made, not fewer. Studios will get to take more risks. There will be more seats at the table, and very soon entirely new forms of storytelling. In the 1980s, animation was dismissed as a niche corner of the business. Today it is one of the most beloved and profitable forms of storytelling in the world. In live action, filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and Peter Jackson embraced new visual tools not as shortcuts, but as instruments, and expanded cinema in the process. Every time storytelling has met a genuine technological shift, from synchronized sound to color to computer animation, it has redefined the boundaries of the medium and grown larger in the process. Assuredly, I don’t have all the answers, but I am confident that the creative opportunities will expand yet again. How we come through this is a choice. The north has the new tools. The south has the creative soul. The best future will draw on the best of both worlds.