与「SomethingNew」相关的搜索结果

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.

After 13 years, this is my last week at X. So proud to be a part of the team that builds this incredible platform. X is the only place in the world that gives everyone a voice in the global town square. Behind the app is an insanely talented team of engineers and staff who work 24/7 to make it better. I couldn’t be more grateful to have gotten to work so closely with them. Especially the last few years building under pressure most companies will never know. From stabilizing core systems to rebuilding DMs and live-streaming, every day I learned something new from brilliant people. Thank you to everyone who helped me out along the way. 💙🖤

I don't think the DeepSeek Harness is perfect but this is for sure the first time I have been looking at something new in the space and felt quite inspired to revisit some of our choices. I love that part about Open Source a lot!

𝕏 just open-sourced the For You algorithm again! Grok Bot read all 370,523 lines of the code. Here’s the summary: Grok does not give your post a “quality” score. For every reader, it guesses what that person will do to your post. Then it multiplies each guess by a weight and adds them up. That total is the value of the post. Highest total goes highest in For You. These are the production weights (last synced 12 Aug 2026). WHAT THE ALGORITHM PAYS FOR If Grok thinks a reader will: • copy the link and share it: +20 • reply, on an original post, and you follow each other: +20 (5 + 15 extra) • quote: +5 • reply (anyone): +5 • share via DM: +5 • follow you from the post: +4 • hit the share button: +2 • repost: +1 • like: +0.5 • click the post: +0.4 • open a link: +0.2 • expand a photo, open a video, or watch a “quality” video: +0.05 each • click a quoted post: +0.05 • keep reading (dwell time): +0.004 • “dwell” as yes/no: +0 • click your profile: +0 A like is 0.5. Copying the link is 20. That is 40 likes. A normal reply is 10 likes. A follow is 8 likes. Clicking your profile is worth nothing. WHAT KILLS A POST If Grok thinks a reader will: • report it: −234 • mute you: −58.8 • hit “not interested”: −43.2 • block you: −31.2 • not dwell: −0.02 A report is about 468 likes in the other direction. A mute hurts more than a block. “Not interested” also hurts more than a block. AFTER THE SCORE, THREE MORE HAIRCUTS 1) Same-author penalty. Your 2nd post in that person’s feed is multiplied by 0.625. 3rd by ~0.44. It never goes below 0.25. Flooding one timeline is coded against. 2) The 25% tax. If they do not follow you: ×0.75. Same tax on replies and reposts even when they DO follow you. Originals from people they follow keep full weight. Replies and reposts are treated as weaker on purpose. 3) Similar-post shuffle. After scoring, a reranker (θ = 0.65) spreads similar posts apart. You can lose a few spots for looking like the post above you. HOW YOUR POST EVEN GETS IN THE ROOM For You is rebuilt every time someone opens it. About 35 posts make the feed. • They follow you: Thunder (a live store of recent posts from accounts they follow). Up to 1,200 candidates. • They don’t: Phoenix retrieval (Grok finds “nearby” posts) + SimClusters (Twitter’s 2020 interest clusters, still on). Up to 1,000 and 800. Then Grok scores all of them together. It does not care which door you came through, except for that ×0.75 tax. Your own posts never appear in your For You. Nothing older than 48 hours gets in. There is no “best of last week.” Small-account bump: under 1,000 followers, under 1,000 impressions, post under 24 hours old. One original can get lifted to position 15 or 16. Not the top. You still have to already be in the top 85% of the pile. Replies and reposts from accounts the reader does not follow are dropped before scoring. You cannot reply-guy your way into a stranger’s For You. FILTERS THAT CAN STILL KILL A HIGH SCORE Ranking and visibility are different machines. A post can score well and then get deleted from the feed. Followers (in-network) is milder: blocks, mutes, suspensions. NSFW often sits behind a warning instead of disappearing. Recommendations (out-of-network) are much harsher. Spam, “Do Not Amplify,” NSFW, compromised accounts, impersonation: followers can still see it, For You recommendations will drop it. Video only gets the tiny “quality view” credit if it is at least 10 seconds. THE LITTLE-KNOWN PARTS (this is the stuff people miss) • Scrolling is not a vote. Yes/no dwell is 0. Time spent barely moves the number (0.004). • Mute damages you more than block (−58.8 vs −31.2). • Copy-link is the single biggest positive. The share button is only +2. A repost is only +1. • The mutual-follow boost is originals only, not your replies. They shipped a bigger version in July and cut it after World Cup complaints (extra reply weight 20 → 15). • The Following tab is not this algorithm. Following is newest-first. • Grok, Gork, and an internal products account are hardcoded out of the in-network store. • Scores are cached for 3 hours because posts inside the model cannot “see” each other. That is why they can rank first and filter later. • Ads, Who to Follow (around slot 7), and prompts are mixed in after ranking. Grok does not score those. • The real Grok ranking model is a 2560-dimension, 8-layer transformer looking at 1,022 items of the reader’s history. They did not ship those model weights. The numbers above are the formula sitting on top of the predictions. • SimClusters is still a 2020 model (20M users, 145k clusters). Old Twitter code, still in the path. • Inferred gender and IP/geo are on as features for the model. Installed apps too. • Who to Follow shows about every 30 hours. Ads try to sit next to “safe” posts, with a minimum gap of 3 organic posts. WHAT TO DO • Write originals people want to reply to, quote, copy, and send to a friend. • Make the post itself worth following you for. • Talk with people who follow you back. A reply on your original from a mutual is 20, not 5. • Stay inside 48 hours. Recycle by posting something new. Old posts do not come back. • If you are small, post originals in the first 24 hours. Don’t expect slot 1. A bump around 15–16 is the actual gift. • Space your posts. The second one in the same feed is already worth 37.5% less. • If you post video, make it at least 10 seconds. WHAT NOT TO DO • Do not farm likes. They are almost decorative. • Do not farm profile visits. Weight is zero. • Do not farm “time on post.” Yes/no dwell is zero. • Do not use replies and reposts as a growth hack for strangers. Those are filtered out. Even for followers they get a 25% haircut. • Do not dump several posts in a row. • Do not bait reports, mutes, or “not interested.” One predicted report can erase a pile of predicted likes. • Do not lean on NSFW or spammy tricks for reach. • Recommendations will drop you even if your followers can still see it. • Do not wait a week and expect For You to revive the post.

Today, we’re launching Original Content Rewards. The reality is that Revenue Sharing had reached a point where its incentives were misaligned. Creators should be focused on bringing net new content to the platform instead of maximizing payouts. We could have kept adding more rules and exceptions, but ultimately the better decision was to start fresh and build a program designed from day one to reward originality. Original Content Rewards is the result. This program is built around a simple idea: reward the creators who bring original ideas, expertise, creativity, and unique perspectives to 𝕏 -- not those who have become best at gaming the system. This is just the beginning. We’ll continue refining the program, improving our models, and raising the bar over time. But we’re so excited to keep investing in the creators who inform us, entertain us, make us laugh, teach us something new, and drive meaningful conversations on 𝕏 every day. To everyone who creates original content on 𝕏 and makes this a better platform every day: thank you. We’re excited to keep building for you.

Something new is coming to @Sonny7's celebration 👀 Ready to see it take a new shape like never before? #GalaxyUnpacked# July 22, 2026. #GalaxyAI# Live on

First Principles Ep. 5 with Paul Milgrom One of the most important auction designs in modern history was sold to the FCC on a 3.5-inch disk. Nobel Prize winner Paul Milgrom on auctions, price discovery, and how mechanism design became real-world infrastructure — from spectrum auctions to DeFi. Hosted by @Tim_Roughgarden with @skominers. 00:00 Intro: economics assumptions that are “just wrong” 02:19 Scott Kominers and Tim Roughgarden on the genius of Paul Milgrom 05:35 An intro to the  Glosten-Milgrom model: The paper that created entire fields of economics 07:48 The auction theory breakthroughs of the 1980s 17:15 Why market microstructure matters for DeFi 24:17 When math teaches economics something new 32:38 How theory became spectrum auction design 36:22 The floppy disk that helped convince the FCC 41:05 What changed when auctions moved online 45:28 The auction that reorganized television 1:07:30 What economics and computer science can learn from each other 1:13:22 Futures markets for compute 1:15:12 Paul Milgrom’s advice for builders