与「mist」相关的搜索结果

Last week, I attended the @ElonMusk and Jamie Dimon @SpaceX discussion at J.P. Morgan. Jamie asked Elon how he had changed over the past 20 years as a leader and a person. Elon's answer wasn't about success. It was about what's next. He said he has learned a lot...has made mistakes and still has much to learn... Then he added, “I think maybe the future AI will say ‘not bad for a human’." Elon, thank you so much for what you've done for humanity. Congrats to you, @Gwynne_Shotwell, @BretWJ, and the entire team. What is even more remarkable... this feels like day one, that you are just getting started. PS. When people ask "what is the next SpaceX and who is the next Elon?" Simple answer. There is NO NEXT!!! Elon Musk is a mensch!

Vibe-coded Monet’s flowing colors with Claude Fable 5. The paint follows your mouse and melts/dissolves into foggy mist. Paired it with Debussy’s Clair de Lune for the dreamy atmosphere. Gave it a super vague prompt — all misty, ethereal, “dissolving into air” stuff. It nailed the mood perfectly. No color references, just “Monet style.” It pulled beautiful palettes from Haystacks, Water Lilies, etc., and smartly used blue-purple shadows instead of black. Bonus: it suggested the music, made a clean piano version with reverb, and even added click-to-play, mute, and clear canvas on its own. Fable 5 felt more like a tasteful collaborator than a tool.

this is my personal singularity moment this post may sound like a paid ad. I only wish. I'm concerned, more so than happy. the world is changing, and, among the scenarios where AI goes terribly wrong, inequality is the most realistic, yet, the one Anthropic seems to be the least concerned about. I'm glad OpenAI is taking the opposite stance: *personal AGI for everyone*. I think this is a commendable position in the times we live. but who am I in the queue of the bread? anyway, Fable is here, so I'll just report my first-hour experience first of all, all my pet prompts are solved. → λ-calculus puzzles → bug questions → one-shot apps all are trivial to it. I don't have anything harder other than my ongoing work so, in the last several days, I've been toying with HVM5, a new interaction net evaluator with a faster loop. after writing the first version, I left 32 GPT-5 agents working for ~20 hours each. this resulted in up to 2x speedups, but the file size increased by 2-fold and quality decreased significantly. I then simplified the whole thing into an even simpler core, and left Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 optimizing it for 8 hours. Opus got a legit 6% - 34% speedup in most benches. GPT got better results, but, sadly, an unusable file. I then asked Fable to optimize it. 2 hours later, it landed a 1770% speedup in one case, 100%+ in other 4, and 22% in average. yes, in 2 hours it outperformed me, opus 4.8 and a swarm of gpt 5.5 agents, by one order of magnitude. that could not possibly be legit. "it must be hardcoding the benchmarks" (GPT trauma). so I read its explanation and what it did was, indeed, the most high impact optimization one could try first. seems like HVM5 was wasting a lot of time garbage-collecting unused branches of pattern-match nodes. I had optimized that for static mats, but not for dynamic mats. skill issue. Fable figured how to do it for these, resulting in a massive speedup in some benches but wait, is that *correct*? I'm not sure yet, it is credible, but this is the kind of thing that is very easy to get wrong on interaction nets. the problem is, when I was ready to start auditing Fable's solution so I could tell whether it was buggy or legit, it interrupted me to tell me it had found a massive bug on the code *I* had written. ... wait, what? so... for garbage collection purposes, I stored a bit on lambda term pointers that meant "the variable bound by this lambda has been freed, so, its lambda must free whatever argument it is applied to". that's fine. yet, on duplicator nodes, I also used the same bit to mean "one of the duplicated variables was freed, so, treat this dup as a passthrough no-op". so, if a lambda entered a duplicator, it would mistake the lambda's collection bit for its own, resulting in corrupted interaction! that's a mouthful, why I'm writing this? just so you can appreciate the sheer absurdity of what just happened. I didn't ask it to find bugs. I asked it for an optimization. and even if I did ask it to find bugs, this bug is so astonishingly subtle and specific, identifying it takes mastering the domain to an extent that it beyond even me. I'd easily need hours or days to fix it, *if* I ever came across it. chances are it would just go unnoticed. and Fable found it and fixed it like it was nothing, while it was busy adding a 17x speedup to a file that neither I, nor Opus 4.8, nor a fleet of GPT 5.5 managed to barely make 2x faster. oh and there is also another tab where it is also ripping through Bend's codebase and finishing everything I had to do I don't know what to say anymore this isn't about Anthropic or OpenAI, this is about our collective future as a species. the world is changing, and we need to be aware of it, and discuss how to handle this change. receipt below . . .

Why Most CIOs Are Quietly Praying for Retirement — And the Few Who Aren’t Are About to Get Very Rich I had a moment this week where I was sitting across from a Director of IT and it hit me — this poor bastard has the toughest job in the entire company. The business folks get to be full-time dreamers: “Hey, can we automate this? Can the AI just know what to do? Can it walk my dog while I’m in this meeting?” Meanwhile he’s over there thinking about data security, system reliability, whether some employee is gonna click on an email that says “You’ve won a $1,000 Walmart gift card!”, whether Ukrainian hackers are going to steal their customer data at 2 a.m., and whether his entire team is about to get replaced by three interns and ChatGPT — all while knowing none of this stuff actually works the way the brochures promised. And here’s the part that makes me feel for the guy — for his entire career he’s been rewarded for keeping the machines running and not getting fired. Now we’re asking him to suddenly become a profit center, to be out over his skis with AI initiatives. It’s like telling the hall monitor he’s now responsible for running the company’s underground poker game. Did I just compare our AI software to an underground poker game? Yeah, probably not the best analogy, but hang with me here, I’m rolling. Meanwhile the C-suite is over there wondering why nothing’s happened yet, completely oblivious to the fact that they’ve spent twenty years brutally punishing IT for not playing defense. Hell, I know CIOs who got fired because Windows 95 sucked. The real kicker is how to even get started. Our philosophy has always been to start small — automate one workflow, prove it works, and then compound fast. Smart in theory. In practice, with a big organization, that feels like bringing a birthday candle to a forest fire. The C-suite doesn’t get excited about incremental. They want to see something that actually moves the needle. So you’re stuck trying to thread this ridiculous gap: build something small enough to actually work, get real user adoption, and make sure the vendor isn’t full of shit. Honestly, I don’t envy that seat one bit. At Collide, we’re committed to being real partners with the folks actually doing the building. I’ve got serious scar tissue from getting fired for not being “openly collaborative” with other oil and gas companies on well spacing back in the shale days, and I’m never making that mistake again. We’re gonna share what we learn, educate when we can, and actually listen — God knows we have a lot to learn too. Truth is, my tech guys are dying to find some partners in crime — and I really gotta stop with the crime analogies, I swear that’s not what we’re doing here — because they get all excited explaining the latest and greatest AI breakthrough and I respond with the technical sophistication of a man asking if his rotary phone has Bluetooth. Sip slowly, my friends.

This interview hurt my soul. The mistreatment of black women and journalists by this President is down right embarrassing and unacceptable. Kristin Welker is neither crooked or stupid. She is a history making journalist who has earned the right to be respected. The President should apologize immediately.

The Times's weekend read: * The Labour leadership contest has already begun. In No 10 Starmer is fighting for his political life, putting huge pressure on teh system to bolster his Premiership in face of existential threat posed by Andy Burnham * Expect a frenzy of activity in coming weeks - the defence investment plan, social media restrictions for under 16s, the Brexit reset. Announcements bogged down in months of bitter internal rows will finally come into public view * All the announcements are coming before or shortly after June 18th, the date of the Makerfield by-election. Starmer is trying to send a message to Labour MPs that he can deliver * He isn't the only one. Burnham has began issuing his own national leadership pledges - starting with a £300million cut in business rates for pubs and small businesses * His press release directly attacked Starmer and Reeves, accusing the government of 'undervaluing' their importance to local communities. This is a *Labour* candidate directly criticising a *Labour* government * The lines between the Labour Party and Burnham's campaign are increasingly blurred. Team Burnham now has a lot of the party machinery on his side - press officers, officials etc - and also has most of the cabinet out knocking doors in Makerfield. Power is already moving * Starmer thinks he can fight Burnham, but his allies are unconvinced. One said that he thinks Burnham has behaved 'appallingly'. 'His view is why should he make it easy for him?' * But there is an acknowledgement that Starmer is on borrowed time. That it is a case of when, not if he goes * There are divides in Team Burnham over when he should amke a move if he wins Makerfield. The 'go-now' camp say he must seize the opportunity or it could slip through his hands, using the momentum of the by-election to act decisively * But others think this could be disastrous - that he needs time to build up a proper plan for government and No 10. That if he doesn't he risks repeating Starmer's mistakes all over again * Then there's what's being billed as the 'battle for the soul of Burnham'. There are those on the left - Louise Haigh, Miatta Fahbulleh and others - who favour a radical break from Starmer. Then there are the centrists - Josh Simons, Jim O'Neill - are are said to be emphasising the importance of fiscal credibility. It is potentially a v unwieldy coalition

Elon Musk just dissolved 3,000 years of philosophy in four words on Lex Fridman’s podcast. “Might as well be human.” And it has nothing to do with machines. Musk: “It will soon be able to simulate what we consider consciousness. To a degree that you would not be able to tell the difference.” Think about what that actually means. Not for AI. For you. You have never once confirmed that another human being is conscious. Not your mother. Not your partner. Not your closest friend. You watched their behavior. You heard the right words at the right times. You saw expressions that matched the moment. And you called it real. That is a Turing test. You have been running one on every person you’ve ever known since the day you were born. And every single time, you passed them on faith. Fridman: “From the aspect of the scientific method, it’s might as well be consciousness, if we can simulate it perfectly.” Fridman is not making a claim about AI. He is naming something humanity has never confronted. Consciousness has never been proven between two human beings. We never verified it in each other. We performed it for each other. And then we trusted the performance. For millennia, we told ourselves our flaws were the proof. That our hesitations and contradictions were the signature of something no machine could touch. Musk: “Talks like a human, makes mistakes like a human… and you literally just can’t tell.” If a machine can perfectly simulate your imperfections, your imperfections were never sacred. They were patterns. The question was never whether AI will become conscious. The question is whether consciousness was ever anything more than the performance itself. We assumed something existed behind the behavior. That being human meant something deeper than the act of being human. Musk didn’t build a machine that passes the test. He revealed the test was all there ever was. Musk: “Might as well be human.” Four words that don’t elevate the machine. Four words that reveal “human” was never a proven category. Just a performance we agreed to believe.

📸✨🪚ビジュアル解禁🪚✨📸 舞台『ドリルマンØ（バース）』  2026年6月17日〜21日 📍Asagiri Mist Theater（旧コフレリオ新宿シアター） 6/21ゲスト 今出舞 事前ソロチェキ・差し入れサービスの受付中👇 🎫発売中👇 #ドリルマン#