Olivia
Online
HackStars
@HackStarsHQ
Hackathons for the Stars
We Hack Culture
Joined March 2026
177 Following
12 Followers
89 Posts
@vinylbarshibuya keep kookin
@ekuyda vibe coding collaborative social games with the homies
"Don't think for a second that because you're an alarmist you're doing a social good" - Jensen cooking
Once you realize you have control over your thoughts you become a very powerful person. And I mean very.
HackStars agreez
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.
@brennenschlu did someone say Zor
WHACKATHON REQUIRED
Check out #FatNwigwe @TierraWhack music video “Fat Nwigwe & Tierra Whack - QUEEN [THE WHACK VERSION]” out now! On all streaming platforms #TierraWhack #new #allsuperstarstv
@rndyrbrts we wanna talk
@SaaiArora Hack the Culture.
@heymike Dope - we want you at a HackStars event soon.
Iron Cuz.
Ilya Sutskever’s reading list that he gave to John Carmack.
“If you learn all of these, you’ll know 90% of what matters today”
A glorious list of papers ranging a decade, some of the most highly influential pieces of research that have led to this moment.
> the first law of complexodynamics
> recurrent neural network regularization
> imageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
> neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate
… and more
Highly recommend going through these!!
Excellent analysis. The missing piece here is widespread consumer adoption of AI for social, cultural, and recreational use.
What is missing is cultural infrastructure. That's why we exist.
Vibecoding is the new Fortnite.
#HackStars.
⚡️Karp is naming the real enterprise AI split.
The frontier labs sold intelligence as a universal product.
Enterprises are discovering that raw model access is not enough, and in sensitive environments it can become a sovereignty problem.
The issue is not only performance. The issue is control.
Who owns the model behavior?
Who owns the weights?
Who owns the prompts?
Who owns the data exhaust?
Who owns the workflow knowledge?
Who owns the company’s operational alpha after the model has observed it?
That is the center of the rant.
Karp is saying the frontier model layer is trying to become a tax on every enterprise’s private knowledge. Companies pay token fees, hand over context, expose workflows, and then fear the model provider can learn from, replicate, commoditize, or eventually compete with the very business it serves. Even if the lab says it will not do that, the trust problem remains because the customer does not control the full stack.
That is why Palantir plus Nvidia matters. The pitch is: keep compute, models, ontology, data, and operational logic under customer control. Use models as replaceable components. Do not let OpenAI, Anthropic, or any single frontier lab become the owner of the enterprise brain.
The strongest line is “they want to know they own the means of production.”
That is the whole architecture war.
In consumer AI, users tolerate dependence. In enterprise, battlefield, manufacturing, healthcare, intelligence, energy, and regulated finance, dependence is unacceptable. The model cannot be a black box that absorbs secret workflows and charges tokens forever. The model has to be embedded inside a controlled operational layer where the customer owns the data, governs the model, controls compute, switches providers, and preserves institutional alpha.
This is extremely bullish for Palantir’s ontology thesis.
Karp is basically saying the value is not just the model. The value is the application layer that turns models into usable, safe, governed action inside real institutions. That is exactly Palantir’s lane. Frontier labs provide cognition. Nvidia provides compute. Palantir provides the operating structure that makes cognition useful in environments where mistakes, leaks, hallucinations, IP loss, or data exposure are existential.
That is also why he is attacking token economics.
Token billing works when AI is a tool. It becomes offensive when AI is sold as transformation but the customer cannot see value, cannot control the stack, and suspects the vendor is capturing the business’s hidden knowledge. Enterprises do not want to rent intelligence from a potential future competitor. They want sovereign capability.
The AI bubble point is more precise than “AI is fake.”
Karp is not saying AI is fake. He is saying the frontier-lab business model may be mispriced, overtrusted, and structurally wrong for serious enterprise deployment. Compute plus application layer plus model is real. Raw model subscription sold as enterprise transformation is weaker. That is the knife.
So the likely outcome is not enterprise AI demand collapsing. The likely outcome is enterprise AI spend migrating away from generic chatbot/token subscriptions and toward controlled stacks: private compute, open or controllable models, Nvidia infrastructure, secure application layers, ontology, governance, auditability, and domain-specific deployment.
That is bullish for Nvidia.
Bullish for Palantir.
Bullish for sovereign AI stacks.
Bullish for open models when paired with secure deployment.
Bearish for frontier labs that assume they can own the customer relationship, the model layer, the data interface, and the economics forever.
The deeper geopolitical read: battlefield AI cannot be outsourced to consensus Silicon Valley. Karp is saying American warfighting, critical infrastructure, and industrial command systems need AI, but they cannot be dependent on model providers whose governance, safety ideology, product incentives, and data posture are misaligned with sovereign use. That is why he keeps saying Department of War, Ukraine, Israel, critical infrastructure. He is framing Palantir as the patriotic enterprise operating layer between uncontrolled frontier labs and national power.
The cleanest read:
The AI stack is splitting.
Model layer: powerful but commoditizing and politically distrusted.
Compute layer: scarce, profitable, strategic.
Ontology/application layer: where enterprise value, trust, control, and workflow ownership live.
Karp is arguing that the model companies overplayed their hand by acting like the model owns the future. Enterprise customers are realizing the future belongs to whoever controls the operational layer around the model.
That is exactly Palantir’s thesis.
And he is probably right.
Meet Hermes Agora
A 3D command center for Hermes Agents
Built 100% by Hermes Agents connected to Unreal Engine
Your AI agents now have a place to live, think move and collaborate.
Coming soon!
BREAKING: Claude can be used as your habit design coach trained in Atomic Habits to make new
behaviors stick in 30 days.
Here are 5 prompts to use it:
The best predictor of success for tech companies, at every stage from during the YC batch to public company with billions in revenue, is the rate of shipping new stuff.
AppStars r HackStars
In 3 days we took this app our friend made and transformed it
@sofianeflarbi built a powerful multiplayer vibe coding app, but nobody saw his post about it.
We redesigned and re-dropped it together, in Danger Testing fashion.
Open-sourcing our thinking, slides, and process:
@marcgmbh genius & dope
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Kate Devlin
Seen from United States
EMAK EMAK DASTERAN
Seen from Indonesia
🕸️ 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘆 🕸️ ✘
Seen from United Kingdom
AMATÖR TÜRK
Seen from Turkey
افلام سكس سودانيه
Jerii
Seen from Malaysia
Yejun
Seen from Korea
BLACKED RAW 
Seen from Turkey
James Heale
Seen from United Kingdom
Ardy Wu
Seen from United States
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
118.9M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.6M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.5M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.5M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.2M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.2M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers