与「engineer」相关的搜索结果

📢 Claude Sonnet 5.5 Is Now Live on As @AnthropicAI’s latest Sonnet model, Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the faster, more cost efficient complement to Claude Opus 5.5, delivering 30%+ faster output and up to 30% lower cost per task. Built for software engineering, Agent workflows, and professional documents, with image/PDF understanding, report, presentation, spreadsheet & UI generation, 5 reasoning levels, and a 1M-token context window, with no extra charge for long-context usage. Now available on both API and Web Chat! 👉 Try now: 🔗 Learn more:

BREAKING: A New York Times Games engineering director is dead and his parents-in-law were arrested shortly after the deadly shooting. Police say Jonathan McKinsey, 40, was found with multiple gunshot wounds Saturday afternoon in a Dublin, California, sports complex parking lot and pronounced dead at the scene. His parents-in-law, Shouyong Zhang and Shili Chen, both 77, were arrested on suspicion of murder within minutes after witnesses helped officers identify them. Police say there are no outstanding suspects. A possible motive has not been released. Read more for the latest developments:

SpaceX engineers got their first hands-on look at a Starship after its return from space. What they learned led to improvements in Starship’s heatshield we’ll see fly today. Watch the latest episode in the ongoing Starship series →

[开源学习资源] AI Engineering from Scratch 59.8K ⭐️ 作者 @ghumare64 课程共 20 个阶段，以 Python 为主要编程语言，主张在导入任何框架之前，先用纯数学把每个算法手写一遍。 课程地址： 开源地址： 它和常见教程的本质区别 ？ 大多数 AI 教程是“API 驱动”的：装个库、调个接口、跑个 demo。这个项目反其道而行，每节课遵循固定的六段结构： Motto → Problem → Concept → Build It → Use It → Ship It 以 Phase 10 的一节课「Tokenizers: BPE, WordPiece, SentencePiece」 为例，这个格式是真实落地的，而且写作质量相当高： · Problem 部分不讲废话，直接从代价切入：“你的 LLM 不读英语，它读整数。分词器决定这些整数是承载意义还是浪费意义”，然后解释为什么 tokenization 不是预处理，它是架构的一部分（影响上下文窗口利用率、API 计费、推理速度）。 · Concept 部分用“三种失败的方案和一种胜出的方案”来讲演化逻辑：词级切分（词表爆炸、[UNK] 问题）→ 字符级切分（序列过长）→ 子词切分（BPE 的折中），并配上真实语料上 BPE 逐步合并的手工演算。 每节约 3000+ 词，带 Mermaid 图、可运行代码和测试。 另外两个设计值得强调： · 每节课产出一个可复用的 artifact，一个 prompt、一个 skill、一个 agent 或一个 MCP server。学完整个课程，你手里有 523 个可展示的作品，不是 523 个跑完就扔的 notebook。 · 强调“证据留存”：保留命令、退出码、输出，作为学习发生的证明。这明显吸收了工程实践中“可验证性”的思路。 # 课程结构：从线性代数到自主智能体集群 20 个阶段构成一条完整的上升曲线，咱们它分成五个大块来看： 基础层（Phase 0–2）：环境与工具链、数学基础（线性代数/概率/微积分）、经典机器学习。这是给基础不牢的读者铺的路。 深度学习与感知层（Phase 3–6）：神经网络核心、计算机视觉（一路讲到 NeRF、高斯泼溅、世界模型，这已经超出一般教程的覆盖范围）、NLP、语音。 生成与决策层（Phase 7–9）：Transformer 深挖、生成式 AI（GAN、扩散模型、flow matching）、强化学习。 LLM 层（Phase 10–12）：这是全课程的重心之一。Phase 10 的目录我逐条看过，它不只是“从零实现 GPT”这种常规内容，还包含了相当前沿的论文级主题：DeepSeek-V3 架构走读、DualPipe 并行策略、Native Sparse Attention（NSA）、多 token 预测、Jamba 的 SSM-Transformer 混合架构、 speculative decoding 等。Phase 11 转向应用侧（RAG、LoRA、MCP、可观测性），Phase 12 覆盖多模态（从 CLIP 到 computer-use agent）。 智能体层（Phase 13–16）：工具与协议（MCP、A2A、Agent Skills）、54 节课的 agent 工程、自主系统与安全、多智能体集群。这一层的分量很能说明项目的判断：它认为 AI 工程的重心正在从“训模型”转向“构建可靠协作的智能体”。 收尾（Phase 17–19）：生产基础设施、伦理与对齐、毕业设计。 # 生态与周边：不只是一个课程仓库 网站：带浏览器本地存储的学习进度追踪、术语表、课程目录和路线图。 六卷本书籍：课程内容由 CI（pandoc）自动构建成 EPUB/PDF，附在 GitHub Releases 上，课程即书，且随仓库持续更新。 Agent 导师模式：运行 npx skills add rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch，可以把整个课程装进 Claude Code、Codex 等编码智能体，变成一个带分级测验（placement quiz）和个性化路径的交互式导师，学习进度写在 LEARNING.md 里。这是“用你正在学的工具来学”的巧妙闭环。 认证备考：5 条备考路径、67 节课、505 道练习题，覆盖 Anthropic 的 Claude 认证和 Agentic AI Foundation 的 MCPA。项目明确声明与这些考试机构无关联，只是独立的备考材料。 12 种语言的翻译（含中文），以及四条核心学习路径（构建与部署 AI 应用、软件工程基础、Agent 辅助工程、产品判断与交付）供不同目标的人选路。

如果我们可以重新理解 Quant Developer。 这并不只是思想实验。 Jane Street 2026 年公开的研究方向包括机器学习、编程语言、编译器、ASIC、FPGA、分布式 shared log、incremental computation、查询优化、分布式存储和形式化验证，而Citadel GQS 则把实时数据、HFT 执行和低延迟 ML 推理放进了同一个 Quantitative Research Engineer 岗位。 再次强调，市场是一个高维、受驱动、耗散的非平衡系统。 订单持续进入、撤销、成交，信息、资本和风险不断注入，异质的参与者相互作用，系统几乎从未达到平衡。 当看到Jane Street 把 graph-structured、incremental computation 列为长期研究方向，我想这是一个值得认真理解的信号。 如果我们发现研究对象持续变化时，计算本身或许也需要围绕变化来组织。 一条报价更新，并不意味着整个市场都需要被重新计算。 它首先改变某些局部状态，再沿着依赖关系，影响相关资产的估值、组合的风险暴露，以及尚未成交的订单。 如果把这些计算关系展开，我们会看到数据连接特征，特征连接预测，预测连接决策，决策通过成交与持仓，反馈到下一轮计算。 这里必须区分两件事。 计算图中的依赖关系，不自动等于市场中的因果关系。但只要我们能够明确哪些结果依赖哪些输入，就有机会在新事件到来时，只更新受到影响的部分。 这正是 incremental computation 最吸引我的地方，它让计算资源跟随变化分配。困难的问题也随之浮现。哪些状态已经过期，筛选必须更新的传播，可以合并的计算。我们开始寻找，在并发和异步执行中，如何避免把不同时间的市场状态拼成一个从未真实存在过的世界？ 于是，延迟就不再止于程序运行了多少微秒。判断抵达市场时，你应该着眼于支撑判断的那个市场是否仍然存在。 想想吧，一个离线表现出色的模型，如果依赖陈旧的数据、无法承受行情突发时的排队，或者不能及时更新风险状态，那么它在回测中发现的信息优势，可能在执行之前就已经消失。 因此，Quant Developer 的工作可以被理解为，他们需要在有限的时间、算力和通信预算内，维护一个足够及时、足够一致、能够用于行动的市场内部模型。 编译器、分布式系统、硬件加速和形式化验证，开始汇聚到同一个问题上。 编译器决定计算如何被表达和执行； 分布式系统决定不同节点如何组织事件与状态； 硬件决定数据移动和运算的成本；形式化方法则帮助我们检查，某些关键约束是否会在复杂的执行路径中被破坏。 这些工作共同决定一个数学上的预测，试图成为现实中的有效决策。 而非平衡系统的视角，提供了一组进一步追问的方向：外部事件，内部状态，反馈是抑制还是放大扰动，输入速度和处理能力的关系对于系统的影响。 当然，市场是耗散系统本身并不会自动产生 Alpha。我想，我们只有把这种直觉落实为可观测的变量、明确的机制和能够被数据推翻的预测，它才开始具有研究价值。 它确实改变了我们看待这个职业的方式。 Quant Developer 所构建的一直是一个嵌入市场之中的实时决策系统。 这个系统观察市场，也通过自己的行动改变市场：它必须在变化尚未结束时做出判断，在信息尚不完整时承担后果。

I have to say - for me it started 2 years ago. I remember the moment so well. I was on vacation in Montenegro. Early night. Everyone is asleep and I am on the balcony watching the cruise ships in Kotor bay as the horizon faded to dark. And I think it was Sonet 3.5 (don't quote me). I had just setup a plugin in NeoVim called Avante by @yetone . And it was magic. Coding with AI at the time wasn't the same - I was going function by function. I was accepting diffs one hunk at a time. But I remember that night - from 10 to like 2 in the morning - I built what I thought would have taken me a week (I was rusty and learning the stack). It was an internal tool - a partial JSON parser / repair tool - so you can take half finished JSON and safely turn it into something that would parse. It is more complicated than it sounds. Anyway. I was hooked that day. At the time I was an executive at a Fortune 50, so coding was not in my job description as such. I had hundreds of engineers... but I have to say - it relit my passions, and now as I am (hopefully) building another startup - I still love it. And I still yell at it. And constantly hunt where it is messing up the architecture and adding bloat and.... well you know how it is.

这个开源项目系统整理了 35 家 AI 公司的 AI 工程师面试题，全部来自 “公开报告的面试经历” 来自 @outcome_school 团队 @pallavishekhar_ 开源发布，内容几乎涵盖了 OpenAI、Anthropic、DeepMind、xAI、DeepSeek、Kimi、GLM 等 AI Labs，Cursor、Cognition、ElevenLabs 等 AI Native 团队和 Nvidia、Microsoft、Amazon、Apple 等头部大厂。 覆盖的岗位头衔也非常多：AI Engineer、LLM Engineer、Gen AI Engineer、ML Engineer、Research Engineer、Applied Scientist、FDE、MLOps/LLMOps 工程师等。 开源地址： # 内容架构：一个精心设计的双层结构 第一层：跨公司通用题（Common Questions）。 作者把在多家公司反复出现的题目只列一次，标注"Asked at"哪些公司，按十大主题组织： 1. LLM 内部机制与架构 — attention 缩放因子、KV cache 内存公式推导、MQA/GQA/MLA、FlashAttention、BPE、RoPE/YaRN、Chinchilla scaling laws、MoE、解码采样策略、lost-in-the-middle、RMSNorm、SwiGLU 2. 推理、服务与 GPU 性能 — prefill vs decode、continuous batching、PagedAttention、投机解码、量化（FP16→FP4）、五种并行策略、TTFT/TPOT 指标、H100 上的 roofline 计算、vLLM/SGLang/TensorRT-LLM 选型、“如何把服务成本降 10 倍” 3. RAG 与检索 — 分块策略、BM25 vs 稠密检索、重排序器、HyDE、权限感知检索、ANN 索引、索引新鲜度、答案归因 4. Agent 与工具调用 — ReAct、MCP、工具 schema 设计、多智能体编排、Agent 记忆、循环终止条件、人类审批 5. 微调与对齐 — RLHF/DPO/GRPO/RLVR 全谱系、LoRA/QLoRA 数学、灾难性遗忘、“提示 vs RAG vs 微调”决策框架、蒸馏、reward hacking 6. 评估与可观测性 — LLM-as-judge 及其偏差、幻觉检测、基准污染、Agent 评估、回归门禁 7. 安全与负责任 AI — 提示注入（直接/间接）、OWASP LLM Top 10、护栏、Constitutional AI、红队 8. 多模态与语音 — VLM、语音 Agent 延迟预算、barge-in 打断处理、级联 vs 端到端语音、ASR/TTS 评估 9. AI 系统设计 — 十类高频设计题（千万级文档企业 RAG、代码助手、客服 Agent、Text-to-SQL、LLM 网关、数亿用户聊天服务等） 10. 编码题 — 从零实现 attention、KV cache、BPE、采样；LRU 缓存、令牌桶限流器、异步批处理器、SSE 流解析器、最小 Agent 循环 第二层：35 家公司的专属章节，分为五大梯队： 1. 前沿实验室（12 家）：Anthropic、OpenAI、Google DeepMind、Meta、xAI、Mistral、Cohere、DeepSeek、月之暗面（Kimi）、智谱（GLM）、阿里（Qwen）、Sarvam AI（印度） 2. 大厂 AI 组织：Microsoft、Amazon、Apple、NVIDIA、Tesla，以及一组消费级 ML 公司（Uber/Netflix/LinkedIn/Airbnb/Pinterest/Spotify） 3. AI 基础设施公司：Databricks、Groq、Together AI、Hugging Face、Scale AI、Perplexity 4. AI 原生产品公司：Cursor、Cognition（Devin）、Sierra、Harvey（法律）、Glean、 AI（机器人）、Waymo 5. 前向部署/企业 AI：Palantir # 题目分布透露的行业信号同样值得关注 1. 公司的差异化考察方向，和它的商业模式严丝合缝。 这是最能体现整理功力的地方： · DeepSeek、月之暗面、智谱、Qwen 的题目深度绑定自家论文——MLA、auxiliary-loss-free 负载均衡、Multi-Token Prediction、MuonClip、DualPipe、长上下文扩展、GLM 的 thinking 模式。面试这些公司等于面试它们的论文，还要求 PyTorch 从零实现 MoE 路由。 · Groq 的题全是 SRAM-only 架构下的 roofline 重推演：“没有 HBM，decode 的 roofline 论证哪里变了”、“确定性在 p99 层面到底买到什么”。 · Apple 清一色端侧：3B 模型在手机上跑、PTQ vs QAT、不采集用户内容的前提下用设备信号改进模型、30+ 语言区无法记录用户内容的评估方案。 · CharacterAI 是推理经济学：“我们的服务成本被 KV cache 而非权重主导，降一个数量级，代价是什么”。 · Harvey（法律）和 Abridge（医疗） 考的是领域约束下的工程：200 页信贷协议里第 140 页的条款依赖第 8 页的定义术语怎么检索、生成的病历中出现了患者没提过的药怎么当作安全事故处理、PHI 如何约束整个架构。 · Palantir 的招牌是 "decomposition" 轮：把“一家货运铁路公司每年因机车非计划停机损失数千万”分解成工程计划。 2. 编码轮的形态正在发生实质性变化。 文档里反复出现的一类题，与传统 LeetCode 明显不同： · “实现一个内存 KV 存储：先 SET/GET/DELETE，再加事务 BEGIN/COMMIT/ROLLBACK，包括嵌套事务”（OpenAI、xAI 都问） · “给你一个 LLM 推理引擎的调度器类，其中一个方法是空壳，没有规格没有文档。说说你头三十分钟干什么”（xAI） “重构这 120 行能跑但很乱的代码，不许破坏测试”（OpenAI） · “对 5 万个文档跑 LLM 调用，API 限 100 并发、偶发 429 和超时，把 Python 写出来”（Anthropic） 考察重心从算法记忆转向增量需求下的代码演进能力、并发正确性、真实工程约束下的取舍。 3. “AI 协作轮”作为新题型已经进入正式面试流程。 这是文档里最前沿的信号： · Anthropic 部分机器学习岗有 AI-collaboration 轮：现场给你 Claude，考察的是你如何指挥它和验证它的产出，而不是你自己写。 · Meta 2026 年的流程新增三阶段 AI 辅助编码轮（探索修复 → 实现新功能 → 扩展改进）。 · Cursor 的 onsite 是两天在真实 Cursor 代码库上做一个功能（或 8 小时远程版），明确考核你对 AI 工具的使用效率和自主 scoping 能力。 · Sierra 给你两小时和任意 AI 工具，看你选择做什么。 xAI 有四小时限时产品构建。 4. FDE 成为一级岗位类别。 Anthropic、OpenAI、Databricks、Scale、Together、Sierra、Harvey、ElevenLabs、Palantir 的章节里都有 "Applied and Forward-Deployed Scenarios" 专属题库——典型题目如“企业客户说 Claude 幻觉太多，你是驻场工程师，头 48 小时做什么”。这对应了 AI 公司向企业交付方式的转变：模型能力差距收窄后，落地能力成为差异化。 5. 硬核系统题的普及。 "H100 上 70B 模型 batch size 1 的 roofline 计算"、"估算 70B 模型的 GPU 显存（权重 + KV cache + 激活 + 碎片）"、"p99 延迟在部署后翻倍但模型没变，走一遍诊断”——这类题横跨 NVIDIA、Together、OpenAI、Perplexity 等多家，说明推理性能的量化直觉已成为 AI 工程师的通用素养，而非基础设施工程师的专属。

Engineers have taught a disembodied robotic hand to walk on its fingers, recover from falls, press keyboard keys, and manipulate objects without an arm. 🎥: softrobotics / YouTube #robots# #robotics# #technology# #technews#

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.