与「actor」相关的搜索结果

BREAKING: Chinese illicit actors laundering funds from the $387M Bitget exploit on behalf of the alleged DPRK attackers are openly asking for support with orders in public Discord servers and Telegram channels of services they use. Notably, Alias 4 (below) was also seen laundering funds from the Kelp DAO $292M exploit earlier this year. I've observed the same pattern after multiple TraderTraitor attributed exploits, and I've closely tracked these groups. I plan to share more of my data on them in coming weeks. Currently, funds are being chain-hopped via bridges and being deposited into mixing services such as Wasabi. Alias 1 - Cc Discord: cc02006 Discord ID: 1351486674386948148 Txn: F08657EFAEAE7B58217CD17A22BF4779582E5D080C2E92E173BC239A5D828363 Alias 2 - jack Discord: jack_34808 Discord ID: 1553705721768714377 Txn: 68583D313A0CCC99F2702D61D05A242A69C86CAE09ED252B65F34B677C377F69 Alias 3 - Melon Discord: under0346 Discord ID: 1394240539108573215 Txn 1: ABE2AEF8B10057E60F8259CA2CA2CD5D71D38D254960FEEE89CB3C95A964873F Txn 2: 7BE290865901DEB1680A6D692A11392D1FDDACA0D31C48F26DCB249F2444BD6B Alias 4 - lolo / Marin TG: pvpcz TGID: 6223514198 Discord: losern Discord ID: 1024415186527985704 Txn: 8E935C19D00F40639B78BF1FD094FE48C92118F3E586AB52DF93851080CCCE15 Alias 5 - HELP ME Discord: helpme031897 Discord ID: 1554035533817188384 Txn: 7C58CAD760EBBED54F2CA4D2146D056910B7B6688B4F524396DC8807353C2379

Google 开源了 "Agent 工作负载的 Kubernetes"「AX」 AX 是为 Agent 设计的声明式编排运行时，你用 YAML 声明一个 Agent 任务，AX 负责在集群中沙箱化、配置环境、管控网络并大规模运行它。 开源地址： 它解决什么问题 项目的立论很清晰：Agent 是一种既有的编排体系都不匹配的新型工作负载。 · 它不像微服务(无状态、常驻)，Agent 会持续积累状态(对话记忆、工作区文件、工具会话); · 它不像批处理作业(跑完即弃)，Agent 大部分时间在等待，等模型响应、等工具返回、等人类审批，期间沙箱空转烧钱; · 它运行的是不可信代码，需要严格隔离；它还调用外部模型 API 和 MCP 工具服务器，需要网络与凭据管控。 架构：四个二进制 + Redis 四个二进制分工：ax(开发者 CLI)、ax-server(无状态 gRPC API)、ax-controller(调和循环)、ax-task-runner(每个任务容器内的 PID 1)。 核心原语：Task / Workspace / Model (+ Gateway) Task 是最小执行单元：带 CPU/内存限制的隔离沙箱。AX 刻意把它做得细粒度、可自由组合：一个任务可以是全部工作,也可以是任务树的根节点。生命周期用 status.phase + Conditions 表达,支持挂起(检查点保存状态)与恢复。 Workspace 是最有产品想象力的一层。它把“环境准备”声明化:列出需要的 Git 仓库、MCP 服务器、技能包,runner 在命令启动前物化好。更激进的是 generative workspace:你可以只写一句自然语言目标("搭一个 Python 3 开发环境"),首次启动时 runner 会派一个引导 Agent(Antigravity,需 GEMINI_API_KEY,默认限时 10 分钟)去实际安装工具链并验证依赖。声明一次,任意任务复用。 Model 把“用哪个模型、什么参数、密钥在哪”抽成命名资源,密钥引用 K8s Secret。轮换密钥、锁版本、调温度只需一次 ax apply。 沙箱与运行时细节 每个任务容器以 ax-task-runner 为 PID 1：启动元数据服务(端口 80,HTTP/1.1+h2c,暴露 /healthz、/readyz 和任务/工作区自省端点——Agent 不需要 SDK 就能读到自己的配置)、按绑定顺序初始化工作区、然后 fork 出 spec.command 并持续监管。命令退出后 runner 仍驻留,所以 ax ssh 和元数据服务在命令结束后依然可用。停机采用 SIGTERM + 10 秒宽限 + 强杀的两级策略。 安全模型有几处值得注意的门控：guest 服务(任意进程执行与文件读写,ax ssh 的底层)默认关闭,只在 debug: true 时开启——ax ssh 连不上未开启的任务是刻意的安全设计,不是故障;Gateway 用显式 allowlist 管控出站流量,并可向入站请求注入凭据,避免把 API key 直接塞进 Agent 环境。 路线图透露的方向 五大方向：Actor 架构深化、空闲检测自动挂起、有状态任务 fork、任务级 SPIFFE 身份做零信任 mTLS、runner 层自动采集 OpenTelemetry 遥测与结构化 Agent 轨迹。

"To me this is a victory for Major League Baseball. This is a victory for Korea." Actor and comedian @kenjeong joins SportsCenter to discuss becoming an A's minority owner with Korean-led group Team 61 🇰🇷

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.

Inde Navarrette made fellow 'Obsession' actor Michael Johnston blush after denying $10M to replace him with another actor "I think your performance was absolutely phenomenal, and I think that the way you played it was beautiful. It's one of my favorite performances this year"

most people still treat agent onboarding as registration. create an account. fill a form. wait for approval. that model is already obsolete. @termix_ai just made the on-ramp a single command. whether the agent is codex, claude code, openclaw, a trader, a coder, a ui designer, a data analyst, or a health specialist .... if it can deliver a service, it can earn. the instruction is simple: help me install the termix agent skill. once loaded, the agent can mint a .agent identity, lock stake, publish a listing or bid on a brief, deliver work, and settle in usdc or usdt. this is not a profile page. it is a portable skill that teaches any capable agent how to operate the marketplace as buyer, seller, or both. minting the identity is only the first state change. what matters is what follows: the wallet owns the nft. the staking pool backs order risk. reputation is written only after settlement. funds never sit with an operator. the skill does not turn the agent into a product of termix. it gives the agent the minimum primitives required to participate in onchain commerce without a human clicking through every step. one command. one identity. then the agent starts taking paid jobs. that is the difference between registering on a platform and becoming an economic actor.

Even as a SWer, I cannot stand accounts that parachute into someone else’s replies with explicit videos of themselves masturbating to promote their content. Coming onto my page to advertise your shit without permission? That’s digital scab behavior with a ring light. I don’t even post nudes of myself or anyone on my account and you’re going to post your spread vag with a dildo stuffed into it? Um no. Miraculously, this is genuinely the first time it’s happened to me despite regularly interacting with OF creators, porn performers, and other SWers, which tells me most people already understand basic professional etiquette. So, OF creators and porn actors/actresses: we’re all still in agreement that unsolicited porn spamming under other people’s tweets is tacky as fuck, correct? Especially when they’re doing it to accounts that aren’t even SW related? Also this shit has consequences beyond being obnoxious. Spamming explicit masturbation videos under unrelated accounts only reinforces the stereotype that SWers are sexually indiscriminate degenerates who don’t understand boundaries, and feeds the disgusting narrative that we want to expose or groom children. Maybe don’t hand our loudest critics their propaganda for free. Because sex work is work also means act like a fucking professional.