与「synth」相关的搜索结果

This is how HOUND smells a market. Market data enters as raw signal. HOUND normalizes it into a feature vector, projects it across 32 synthetic odor channels, activates 971 receptor slots, generates a scent fingerprint, compares it against memory, then decides what deserves attention. Market data → Feature encoding → Synthetic odor → 971 receptors → Scent fingerprint → Memory → HOUND response. The point is not to predict the next candle. It is to give market behavior another sensory representation, so changes, similarities and unfamiliar patterns become easier to notice. Try here :

🌐 9 月 28 日 - 10 月 4 日｜本周大事件 📅 9 月 28 日｜星期一 🔵 日本央行公布 7 月货币政策会议纪要 🔵 Bitget 将分阶段恢复提现 🔵 Upbit 下架 Synthetix（SNX）交易对 📅 9 月 29 日｜星期二 🔵 G20 贸易部长级会议，美国贸易代表参会 🔵 CoinEx 停止现货交易 🔵 $FF 将于 9 月 29 日解锁，价值约 1025 万美元，占流通量 2.51% 🔵 solana:CARDSccUMFKoPRZxt5vt3ksUbxEFEcnZ3H2pd3dKxYjp 将于 9 月 29 日解锁，价值约 1102 万美元，占流通量 10.62% 📅 9 月 30 日｜星期三 🔵 OpenAI 开发者大会 🔵 长鑫科技最早或于 9 月底纳入范达旗下 ETF 🔵 solana:KMNo3nJsBXfcpJTVhZcXLW7RmTwTt4GVFE7suUBo9sS 将于 9 月 30 日解锁，价值约 1083 万美元，占流通量 2.81% 📅 10 月 1 日｜星期四 🔵 国庆假期：A 股休市至 10 月 7 日、港股 10 月 1 日休市、陆港通关闭 🔵 美光 Q4 财报电话会 🔵 $EIGEN 将于 10 月 1 日解锁，价值约 1026 万美元，占流通量 5.19% 🔵 $SUI 将于 10 月 1 日解锁，价值约 1658 万美元，占流通量 0.32% 📅 10 月 2 日｜星期五 🔵 美国 9 月非农就业人口变动 🔵 $2Z 将于 10 月 2 日解锁，价值约 1.13 亿美元，占流通量 47.69% 🔵 $ENA 将于 10 月 2 日解锁，价值约 1104 万美元，占流通量 0.45%

Short SYNTHI stream live. Presenting the new SOS DJ browser app and building the on-chain recording studio step by step. Going live on in a moment: #PumpFun# #ElectronicMusic# #Solana#

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.

Elon basically predicted the next revolution in medicine: “You can effectively think of the future of medicine as being digital” Much of traditional drug discovery has involved finding or screening molecules, testing them, and figuring out what they can do Synthetic RNA starts changing that model From discovering drugs by accident → programming treatments like software If we can understand exactly what biological instructions need to be written into RNA, medicine increasingly becomes something we can design for a specific problem And once we know what to program into synthetic RNA: “You can basically, cure almost anything” Medicine is becoming programmable

Cut your AI ad production costs without cutting quality. 🔥 Use Seedance 2.5 on ToAPIs and save 30–60% compared to other API providers. Seedance 2.5 isn’t just for creative videos — it’s built for serious production workflows too. From industrial manufacturing and robotics to autonomous driving, generate high-quality synthetic video for simulation, training, testing, and product demonstrations. In this example, a simple clay render becomes a high-end photorealistic car assembly sequence — preserving the camera work, structure, motion, materials, lighting, and reflections. More production. Lower API cost. See pricing ↓

WATERMARK STRIPPER HITS 10,000 STARS DAYS AFTER ANTHROPIC SHIPS PROVENANCE Anthropic detailed how Claude's text watermark works last week. By this morning a MIT-licensed repo that strips it has 10,000 stars, targeting Claude, SynthID-Text and OpenAI marks, plus C2PA and EXIF in images and PDFs.

Want world class research capabilities, but don’t have the resources of a big lab? At our recent Sovereign AI event, @gabepereyra shared @harvey ’s “moneyball” approach. Here’s the playbook: 00:00 Introduction 00:37 Building a research lab on a budget 02:28 Legal Agent Bench, contracting, and the diligence dataset 03:57 Domain experts guiding synthetic data generation 05:23 Why Harvey open sourced its datasets 06:55 Working with the neo labs – and why more than one 08:20 Post-training in-house: building "Associate 1" 09:44 The model serving matrix: 60 countries, fallbacks, SLAs 11:05 Deciding what stays in production 12:29 Simple open source switches and model routing 13:55 Moneyball: "If we win on this budget, we change the game" 14:53 Q&A: Training with sensitive data 17:16 Q&A: Competing for research talent 18:46 Q&A: Designing rubrics that actually challenge frontier models 20:19 Q&A: Where the pipeline breaks — data, research, or infra 22:59 Q&A: The tension in open sourcing a benchmark 25:02 Q&A: Biggest remaining open problems 27:10 Q&A: Competing with horizontal products

Claude's watermark probably doesn't work how you think. As the CTO of GPTZero, I'll explain how Anthropic, Google and OpenAI are building text watermarking in this brief explainer and whether it can be defeated. Almost all forms of watermarking that are fast and cheap enough for a frontier lab have the same formula, following the KGW method: In generation: 1. Let's say you've generated n tokens so far. Take those n tokens + a secret key to generate a random hash 2. Use that hash to randomly reweight the probabilities for the n+1 token, and then sample from that new distribution. In the simple case, you could split 50% of all English words into a green or red set based on your hash, and boost the probability of words in the green set. For watermark detection: 1. For each token, see if it was in the green or red set. 2. To do this, recreate the hash based on the secret key and the text preceding the current token. Then, recreate the green and red set of words. 3. Once you've checked all the words in the text, if the next token is selected disproportionally from the green set more than 50% of the time, you claim the text has the watermark. I can tell you want to ask the following: 1) Isn't it easy to mess up the hash if you paraphrase the text? The answer is mostly yes, however, you can use a statistical model to get your hash instead of a deterministic function (SIR, Adaptive Watermark). Since the entire watermark is probabilistic, this is fine. 2) Doesn't this make the text much worse? The answer is yes, it does - Yes, it does – but for most people, it's imperceptible (Google claims in human feedback study with 20,000 texts), since there are exponentially many ways to write the same paragraph. DiPmark does something more sophisticated to avoid shifting the text distribution on average. Of course, watermarks fail on short text or highly predictable texts like "2+2=4". 3) Shouldn't it be easy to figure out the green and red sets? The answer is no. You would need an exponentially large number of samples from the watermarker to reconstruct those sets exactly, but it's a risk if the detector is open to the wild (Watermark Stealing) Still, there are couple challenges that a frontier lab needs to overcome: 1. Their watermark needs to work token-by-token because they are streaming their text to users. Many watermark methods plan sentences or paragraphs at a time, or change the text after its entirely written, in order to make their watermark robust to paraphrasers, and a frontier lab cannot afford to do this yet (SemStamp, PostMark) 2. If the secret key leaks, the watermark is busted. To avoid a large blast damage from this, you need to have a couple secret keys in rotation. 3. There are some texts, like code, that cannot be arbitrarily changed, otherwise the code will break. In those cases, the watermark needs to selectively change words in parts of the text that can tolerate synonyms (i.e. like variable naming) - see SWEET, EWD, Invisible Entropy. 4. They will need to educate their users on how to deal with false positives and false negatives of a detector, which is a big challenge (one we put a lot of effort into) So, how do I see this playing out in the next 6 months? 1. If Anthropic releases the watermark detector publically, I think they defeat their own watermark. People find reliable watermark removal strategies by testing against Anthropic (AI detectors like GPTZero have an advantage here because they can train against these adversaries once they become popular). 2. If they keep the detector private to the government, like Google has done, it's "safer". However, there are some papers showing trained approaches that work robustly to zero-shot break watermarks without any data, simply because they try to write the text just like a human (Zhang et al. 2024, Watermarks in the Sand). Also, making your detector makes it battle-tested and stronger long-term (my experience). 3. In my testing, the watermarks don't survive intense paraphrasing (especially if you combine word choice and syntax attacks), or human text substitution (rewrite your AI text by plagiarizing human authors). The free paraphrasers I've tried have quickly bypassed Google Deepmind's SynthId for what it's worth. 4. All-in-all, frontier labs are likely okay with this because they expect most users to not attack the watermark, and also because they + European regulators likely don't care past a certain point - its good enough. 5. Overall, I think users of frontier LLMs will not really care about this, because 1) they don't realize watermarks are there, 2) EU will force everyone to conform, 3) this seems more like regulatory hoop-jumping than an earnest effort from frontier labs to expose LLM use Lastly, people's first concern shouldn't be watermarking, it should be AI detectors! If you're posting, "its not X, its Y!!", I don't think the watermark is going to make a difference :)