与「pencil」相关的搜索结果

I asked @claudeai Opus 5.5 to make an animated video about a robot who realises he's stuck in an AI-generated world. I wanted to really push it: 12 worlds, 12 styles, from 8-bit to claymation to pencil sketch, you can really see how well this model has imagined all worlds. This is the best animated video you will see today made by Opus 5.5, I promise.

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.

苹果刚刚发布了它的首款折叠手机，iPhone Duo ​​​​ Apple 今天在 Apple Park 举办"Surprise and Shine"发布会，这是新任 CEO John Ternus 上任以来的第一场重大产品发布。Ternus 于 9 月 1 日正式接替 Tim Cook，后者转任执行董事长。Cook 本人也坐在了发布会前排。 发布会的核心是两款手机：Apple 第一款折叠屏 iPhone Duo，以及 iPhone 18 Pro 系列。 iPhone Duo：Apple 的第一款折叠屏 传了好几年的折叠 iPhone 终于来了。iPhone Duo 采用书本式折叠设计，展开后形似护照，内屏 7.6 英寸，外屏 5.4 英寸。机身用的是 5 级钛金属，IP68 防尘防水。 芯片和 iPhone 18 Pro 一样是 A20 Pro，搭配 Apple 自研的 C2 基带。后置双 48MP 摄像头，没有长焦镜头，这是相比 18 Pro 最明显的妥协，大概率是为了控制机身厚度。生物识别用的是侧边按钮的 Touch ID，而非 Face ID，也可以用 Apple Watch 解锁。后续还会支持 Apple Pencil。 两个颜色：星光白和夜空色。256GB 起售价 2,000 美元，最高配置大约 3,000 美元。今天只是发布，预计最早 10 月开售，比 iPhone 18 Pro 晚一步。 对比三星 Galaxy Z Fold 系列（同样 256GB 起售价 1,999 美元），Apple 在价格上基本持平，但在折叠屏市场已经是后来者，三星和华为在这个品类经营了七年。 iPhone 18 Pro：2nm 芯片和可变光圈 iPhone 18 Pro 和 Pro Max 搭载 A20 Pro 芯片，2nm 工艺，2 个"桌面级"超级核心加 4 个能效核心，7 核 GPU。散热性能提升到上一代的三倍。 摄像头最大的变化是 48MP 主摄支持可变光圈，简单说就是镜头可以自动调节进光量和景深，拍人像和夜景时效果会明显提升。还有一个新功能：手机可以验证一张照片没有被 AI 编辑过，在 AI 生成内容满天飞的时代，这算是一个实用的信任工具。 Dynamic Island 缩小了，同时最多支持三个实时活动同步显示。Pro Max 续航提升到 30 小时，充电 15 分钟可以到 50%，这是 iPhone 有史以来最大的电池提升幅度。 四个新颜色：黑色、浅蓝、冰川色（银）、勃艮第（红）。Pro 起售价 1,199 美元，Pro Max 起售价 1,299 美元，均为 256GB 起步。9 月 12 日开始预购，9 月 18 日发售。 其他产品 AirPods 5 的降噪比 AirPods 4 提升了 50%。两个版本：基础版 129 美元带主动降噪，高配版 149 美元多了耳柄音量控制、更长续航和无线充电盒。今天开始预购。 Apple Watch Series 12（399 美元起）和 Ultra 4（799 美元起）升级了健康追踪系统，Series 12 重新引入了陶瓷材质。新增了一个叫 Siri Recap 的功能，用环境监听为你整理一天的高级别笔记。今天预购。 iOS 27 的正式推送日期确认为 9 月 14 日。 值得注意的是，今年普通版的 iPhone 18、iPhone Air 2 和 iPhone 18e 被推到了 2027 年春季，Apple 把九月发布会的焦点完全集中在了高端产品线上。

今晚不用盯发布会啦。 苹果为可折叠 iPhone 敲定了 iPhone Duo 的名称，并设定了 1999 美元的起售价，存储容量最高达到 2TB，价格约为3199美元。它将于十月上市，仅提供eSIM。并支持 Apple Pencil Pro，提供深蓝色 + 白色两种颜色。

🚨 A CHART FROM 1875 PREDICTED THIS EXACT YEAR. LOOK AT YOUR SCREEN. Three indices. One blow-off top. All curling over at the same moment - exactly on the year a man circled in pencil 150 years ago. His name was Samuel Benner. He wasn't a banker, a quant, or a Wall Street prophet. He was an Ohio pig farmer who got financially wiped out in the Panic of 1873 - and was so haunted by it that he spent the rest of his life trying to figure out why markets boom and bust on a clock. In 1875, he published his answer: a hand-drawn chart labeling every future year as one of three things - panic, good times, or hard times. "Good times," in his words, meant high prices and the time to sell. He mapped it all the way to 2059 - and never lived to see almost any of it. Here's the uncomfortable part: his chart has shadowed the big ones for 150 years - the 1929 crash, the dot-com top, 2008. People keep laughing at the dead farmer right up until they're not. So look at what his chart says about right now. 2026 is a "good times - SELL" year. Now look at your screen again. Not one index - three. The Russell 1000, the S&P 500, and the Nasdaq 100. Large caps, the broad market, and big tech, all spiking to the same peak and rolling over together. That's not a sector wobble. That's the entire U.S. market topping at once, on the exact year the farmer flagged before electricity was even in homes. Do I think a 19th-century pig-iron cycle secretly governs Nvidia's stock price? No. The honest take is that Benner's chart has misfired before, and "a calendar told me so" is a terrible reason to sell anything. But here's what makes 2026 different from every other time this chart got hyped: this time the fundamentals showed up to the party. Valuations last seen at the dot-com peak. A Fed that's turned hawkish into sticky inflation - not cutting, threatening to hike. A tech rally so narrow it cracks the second the AI story blinks. And a market that just watched a major economy fall 10% in a single day this week. The farmer didn't predict any of that. He just happened to circle the year the math finally caught up with the mania. You don't have to believe in the chart. You just have to notice that the chart and reality are pointing at the exact same door - and everyone's still walking in. When the superstition and the spreadsheet agree, that's the one time it's worth looking up.