与「synthesizer」相关的搜索结果

New Google paper: A forecast needs context, not just history. Some patterns are caused by events, not time. Nexus reframes forecasting as a reasoning problem, where events and numbers have to explain each other. Nexus argues that forecasting improves when models read the world around the numbers, not just the numbers themselves. In the Zillow tests, one Claude-based version cut average MAPE by 86.6% versus direct chain-of-thought prompting. That matters because most time series models are fluent in pattern, but mute about cause. A housing inventory curve can reflect seasonality, mortgage pressure, migration, layoffs, and local supply, while a stock price can be bent by earnings, regulation, hype, and fear. Nexus separates those jobs instead of asking one prompt to do everything. One agent turns messy historical text into a clean event timeline, one reads the broad regime, another tracks local shocks, and a synthesizer reconciles them with calibration from past errors. The interesting result is not merely that context helps, but that structure helps the language model use context without losing the time series. The evidence is still narrow: Zillow counts, seven equities, post-cutoff data, and single-run evaluations, so this is not a universal law of forecasting. But the direction is clear: future forecasters will not only extrapolate curves; they will argue about what made the curve move. ---- Paper Link – arxiv. org/abs/2605.14389 Paper Title: "Nexus : An Agentic Framework for Time Series Forecasting"

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.

Today at #GalaxyUnpacked#, we shared new @Android and Gemini updates coming to the latest @SamsungMobile devices. You’ll be able to: ✨ Get next-generation task automation with Gemini Intelligence, now expanding to more than 40 popular apps. ✨ Manage deep projects and synthesize complex information with @Gemini_Notebook (formerly NotebookLM), which comes preinstalled on Samsung's new foldables. ✨ Take Gemini on the go with upcoming watches and glasses — including the Galaxy Watch 9 and two new intelligent eyewear frames from @_GentleMonster_ and @WarbyParker’s collections coming this fall.

This weekend's project: Fieldtone: a generative instrument that plays a different piece of ambient music for every place on Earth. Every note is synthesized live in your browser from your location, the local time, and the weather.

I asked claude Fable to show me its maximally expressive form. It declined every video generator I offered, wrote it's own render engine in my terminal, synthesized its own voice, and wrote a generative ASCII engine from scratch. This is what it chose as a self-portrait. oh my god

🌍 GLOBE HUB We're allocating Genesis Hub access to the strongest signals inside the network. Study GLOBE. Understand the model. Synthesize the signal. How to participate: 1. Publish a Twitter thread explaining GLOBE and its network architecture. 2. Join Telegram: ➔ 3. Submit your thread together with your ETH wallet inside Telegram. ⏳ Submissions close in 48 hours. Selection is based on: • Depth of analysis • Original insight • Community engagement Write in any language. The network remembers signal.

While showbiz bickers over AI video continuity glitches and educators remain stuck debating AI-generated PPTs, World Models are quietly disrupting non-tech sectors, igniting a radical paradigm shift in clinical medicine and surgical simulation. Why healthcare and not Hollywood? Because Hollywood demands visual perfection, but healthcare mandates absolute physical causality. Traditional medical AI could only act as a static periscope—pinpointing a lesion on an existing scan. Yet disease is inherently dynamic. When a physician prescribes a treatment, they historically lacked a patient-specific, long-term window into the exact downstream changes after the patient ingests the drug. Recent breakthroughs showcased at elite computing summits like ICCV have elevated medical AI from passive visual recognition to a predictive, generative "World Simulator" tailored for prognosis and treatment optimization. In validated clinical applications, this technology leverages potent counterfactual reasoning. Take transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for liver cancer and advanced radiotherapy as prime examples: before finalizing an intervention, a Medical World Model (MeWM) ingests a patient’s current CT imagery to simulate months of dynamic disease progression within its latent space. It cross-aligns multimodal parameters to synthesize high-fidelity visual representations of post-treatment tumor trajectories. Simultaneously, its inverse dynamics model quantifies how varying embolic agents or drug cocktails shift long-term survival curves. Empirically, this "future-simulation" paradigm has propelled clinical decision success rates (F1-score) by 13%, cementing its role as an indispensable AI co-pilot. Today, multimodal medical models are rapidly embedding into hospital HIS/EMR nervous systems, as specialized prognosis simulators push past theoretical boundaries into raw performance validation. The ultimate utility of a World Model isn't coding text or animating fantasy; it is evolving into a rigorous, low-cost simulation infrastructure—serving as a high-stakes safeguard for human decision-making. 【The Grand Forecast】 The successful clinical deployment of Medical World Models proves their unique capacity to "simulate future outcomes before executing current actions." This technical paradigm—trading pure aesthetic appeal for rigid physical and biological causality—is sprawling beyond tech ecosystems at a breakneck speed. Stripping away healthcare, autonomous driving, and media entertainment, which trial-and-error heavy traditional industry do you predict World Models will infiltrate and disrupt next? Will it be macro-climate disaster modeling in modern agriculture, dynamic supply-chain evolution in urban planning, extreme stress-testing in deep-sea aerospace engineering, or an entirely unmapped frontier? Drop your sharpest thesis and reasoning in the comments below. Let’s chart the hidden industrial landscape of the next generation of World Models!

开源一个我最近 Review AI Code 流程的 skills， review-forge 我现在越来越发现 Review 的重要性，因为 AI 代码产出太快了，假如长时间不干预，很快整个系统有可能都不受控制。 这个技能里面有这几个关键流程： review：让不同的模型根据当前 diff 或者 branch 生成 bug 报告，每个模型一份单独的报告。（目前我用 GPT5.5/ Compose2.5/ DeepSeek V4 Pro）。多模型 Review 在我长时间的实践中，发现是很重要的，因为每个模型都有自己的盲区，交叉验证。 synthesize： 根据不同模型的 bug report，汇总生成一份summary.md 的报告，因为两个模型都发现的问题，基本就是铁板钉钉的真问题。 手动Review 和决定修复哪些问题：因为问题一般很多，AI 擅长 review，但不擅长决策。后者需要人对整个项目的理解，需要权衡风险和收益，所以必须有我来做决定。 fix：让一个模型修正 summary 中的问题，并且跑测试验证。更新 status.md 文档 verify：让另外一个模型验证是否修复，更新 status.md，以此循环直到你需要的问题解决。 最近在不断改进这套流程，对它感觉越来越好，我也是从Using AI to write better code more slowly 那篇文章进行不断实践的结果，如果希望让 AI 写得好，写的慢的可以参考一下这个流程。

Claude Cowork just got 10x more powerful! Glean benchmarked centralized vs federated MCP in Claude Cowork. Same harness, same model, same queries, different context layer. The federated approach: Each data source (Gmail, Slack, Drive, Salesforce) has its own MCP server. Claude calls each one separately. That's 5-10 tool calls per query. Each source returns results with different quality and ranking. Claude over-fetches to compensate for weak search. Then it filters and synthesizes everything with LLM reasoning. Often needs retry loops when results miss. Burns 50-80k tokens per query. The centralized approach: All data from every source gets indexed into one unified layer. Knowledge graph connects entities across sources. Claude makes one MCP call. Gets back the top ranked results. No over-fetching, minimal filtering needed. Uses 42-44k tokens consistently. The results: Centralized indexing preferred 2.5x more often. Federated consumed 30% more tokens on average. When federated finally got correct answers, it burned 83k tokens vs 43k for centralized. The gap widened as tasks got more complex. Simple tasks: centralized won 66% of the time. Complex tasks: 73%. Why centralized wins: Over-fetching doesn't just cost tokens. It dilutes the context window with noise and contradictory information. Models have finite attention. Cramming 50-100 items hoping the right ones are in there doesn't work as well as getting the right 5-10 upfront. Federated search also loses cross-application signals. Things like document relationships, who authored what, and how content is used across the enterprise. These signals improve ranking but they only exist when data is indexed together in one layer. The compounding problem: In multi-step tasks, each missed or incorrect retrieval compounds. By the time you reach the final output, you're working with flawed data. More tool calls and reasoning loops don't fix this. They just burn more tokens trying to recover. You can't brute-force around bad search. More tool calls, more data fetching, more reasoning loops don't fix poor context quality. They just burn more tokens. Why this matters: Token costs are surging. Reasoning models cost more. Companies are burning through AI budgets faster. Federated search compounds the problem. Better search architecture beats more compute. I've shared the link in the replies!