智能纪元AGI

business doujiangguozi

[智能纪元AGI @a13935257451]

@braveben The dream can end now. Such a big bubble - when will it burst

[智能纪元AGI @a13935257451]

@Meituan_LongCat 没收到+1

[Jeffrey Katzenberg @jeffreykWNDR]

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.

[智能纪元AGI @a13935257451]

@0xLogicrw 没啥应用么

[智能纪元AGI @a13935257451]

特好奇监管机构给jing yang打电话，告知了哪些信息？

[Jing Yang @jingyanghk]

SCOOP: China moves to tighten approvals for humanoid IPOs afte Unitree's debut fails to impress, seeking to cool down a sizzling sector rife with copycats w/ @QianerLiu @JuroOsawa via @theinformation

[智能纪元AGI @a13935257451]

@shuicheng0320 至少说明努力……颜老师论文最近也挺多的

[智能纪元AGI @a13935257451]

@tonypengcomms @ZeyiYang @lmatsakis 原因是啥呢

[智能纪元AGI @a13935257451]

@johnternus Welcome

[智能纪元AGI @a13935257451]

@JustinLin610 When will the new models and products be released? Also, regarding embodied model data processing, what are the data sources and how is it done?

[智能纪元AGI @a13935257451]

@jietang 就等唐老师发力了

[Jeonlees @jeonleetogether]

为什么有些人做个不起眼的小工具，
每个月却能赚几千甚至几万？

昨晚看到的一个挺适合找商业灵感的网站：

https://t.co/MIWeB2veMh

它收录了 2962+ 个已经产生真实收入的项目，
包括 AI 工具、SaaS、插件、电商、内容网站和一人公司。

把海外已经跑通的小生意直接拆开给你看。

“某个项目月入几万美元。”

这个项目怎么开始、启动成本多少、第一批用户从哪里来、靠 SEO 还是社交媒体获客，以及用了什么工具把产品做出来。

你还可以直接按收入、成本、项目类型和团队人数筛选。

比如专门找：

一个人能做的 AI 项目、低成本启动的 SaaS，或者已经做到月入 1 万美元的小工具。

我觉得它最有价值的地方，不是让你照抄别人的产品。

而是帮你找到那些已经有人愿意付钱的需求。

看到一个海外项目后，再去想：

这个需求能不能换个行业？

能不能搬到中文市场？

能不能用 AI 把原本复杂的功能重新做轻一点？

现在用 Codex 做出一个产品，已经没有以前那么难了。

想创业或者搞副业的，可以先把这个入口留好，
先看看别人是怎么做的

[Julien Martin-Prin @jmartinprin]

Je sais pas si on se rend compte de l’impact de cette news…

60% des optiques pour Nvidia sur le 800G c’est Innolight et Eoptolink. Le reste partant chez Lumentum, Coherent et Broadcom.

Les ODMs Chinois c’est 7 fabricants du top 10 monde, avec une pdm (en termes de $) de plus de 50% sur les optiques 100G+. Les 3 plus gros ODMs chinois (Innolight, Eoptolink et HG Genuine) c’est 55% de part de marché mondial sur les optiques.

[ali(gnment) @waterloo_intern]

https://t.co/aivc7B4A7Z

[智能纪元AGI @a13935257451]

@JensenHuang @nvidia Welcome，jensen

[AYi @AYi_AInotes]

强烈推荐大家都去看这个跟workbudy产品负责人Jason的深度对谈播客，
另外关于腾讯workbudy，我说个暴论，你看100篇那些AI写的教程文章，都不如抽1个小时好好看看腾讯官方出品的这期播客，太他么深度了，干货拉满！

Jason分享了一个关键判断让我印象特别深：2021年他曾计划培养孩子学习编程，到2026年发现这个方向已经失效了，在AI的加持下编程本身不再是稀缺技能，洞察力、审美品味、逻辑清晰的语言表达能力，才是AI时代真正的核心竞争力。

还有这个文科生的故事，英语文学专业的前媒体人，一行代码都不会写，就因为自己攒了7000多首杜比全景声的歌，Excel卡到打不开，找外包又说不清楚需求，被逼得没办法开始摸AI编程工具。
你以为是AI两下给他把App生成出来了？根本不是，
他说前前后后开了40多个对话窗口，文件拆得乱七八糟，环境部署从头啃，踩了无数坑，磨了好几个月，才真的把那个杜比音乐App做出来，现在都更新到3.2版本，正经上架App Store了。

那他为什么没放弃？
他说AI会在他做对一点点的时候，蹦出来一句“你这个思路很清晰，像个成熟的产品经理”。
卧槽，就这一下兄弟们应该懂吧，
我们这种在否定式教育里长大的东亚小孩，太吃这一套了。

很多时候你不敢开始，其实不是懒也不是笨，是脑子里那个“你不行”的声音太大了。

咱们从小到大做什么都先被挑错，刚迈出一步就有人说你这不对那不好，久了你自己都信了，你就是做不成事。

但是AI不judge你，不骂你，不会翻个白眼说这都不会，你做对一点它就真心实意夸你，直接把那个压了你几十年的声音盖过去了。

播客里WorkBuddy的产品负责人Jason说，2021年他还在规划以后要送孩子学编程，2026年回头看，这个想法已经不成立了。

我以前以为，只是因为写代码的门槛被AI踏平了，现在才懂，被踏平的根本不止是代码门槛。

以前我们想做个东西，不仅要会写代码，还要有颗大心脏——被bug卡一周，被前辈骂写的什么垃圾，被环境配置搞到崩溃，90%的人在第一步就被劝退了。

现在AI不仅帮你写代码、查bug，还给你当啦啦队，把你那点被打击了几十年、碎得渣都不剩的信心，一点点给你拼回来。

你看现在满屏都是MCP、Agent、Vibe Coding这些新名词，好像你三天不背就要被时代抛弃，大家课买了一堆，一个工具都不敢打开，但实际上哪有那么玄乎啊🤣

当然了，如果你从小在夸奖里长大，内心强大到根本不需要别人给你托底，可能get不到这个点。

但如果你和我一样，总怕自己做不好，怕出错被笑话，迟迟不敢迈出第一步，真的不用上来就想做个上架的App，

不如今天就花半小时，让AI帮你写个批量改文件名的小脚本，或者整理下你乱了半年的文件夹。

你会发现，你根本不是不行，只是之前从来没人，在你做对一点点的时候，认认真真跟你说一句“你做得真棒”🥹🥹

焦虑这东西，站在岸边看永远觉得水很深，脚伸下去才知道，原来不仅水不深，还有人在旁边扶着你，跟大家共勉！

评论区是我对51分钟的文字版总结👇

[智能纪元AGI @a13935257451]

@tonypengcomms @RyanLeeMiniMax

[zzxwill @zzxwill]

纯手工加入了 80 位御三家超级员工，论入职速度，还是 OpenAI 和 Anthropic 快。

目前已有 260 多个朋友关注
https://t.co/f0tIDZenQm

[0x鸣人 @LuBtc888]

家必看看：

AI时代我们要把孩子培养成什么样的人？

人大附中，杨波教授讲座

[Max For AI @MaxForAI]

我现在大概知道 @karpathy 、一堆 Gemini/OpenAI 出身的核心人员（比如Gemini的技术负责人 @NoamShazeer ）要加入 Anthropic 了——他们可能提前看到了这个。

Anthropic 刚发了篇论文，讲了个叫「J-space」的东西：

他们用一种叫 Jacobian Lens 的技术，在模型的中间层里找到了一个类似人类"意识工作空间"的结构——模型会在没写出来、没说出口的情况下，把关键的中间想法先"存"在这个区域里。

然后让不同的下游模块都能读取、复用这些想法，去做多步推理、规划、甚至自我监控。

简单说，这是模型“脑子里默默打腹稿”的地方，效果是能显著撑起复杂推理和长链条任务，一旦把这块区域屏蔽掉，模型多步推理直接崩，但简单问答几乎不受影响。

关键是，这个东西 Anthropic 是在 Sonnet 4.5 身上就已经发现的，到现在都迭代了 4.6、4.7、4.8 好几代模型了。

而最新的 Fable/Mythos，最突出的特征根本不是代码能力猛涨，而是多步推理和长程任务的表现明显、显著优于之前所有模型——这跟 J-space 主导的那类能力高度吻合。

我的判断是：他们大概率已经摸到了怎么去强化、扩大，甚至让这个工作空间自我迭代的方法。

如果真是这样，那这就不只是又一次模型升级，而是找到了一条能持续复利的认知架构杠杆——这也可能才是为什么这么多顶级人才愿意放弃现有位置、押注 Anthropic 的真正原因。

他们可能是真的看到了 AGI 的曙光。

那肯定要立刻加入。

一秒都不能等。

[思维怪怪 @0xLogicrw]

追踪 AI 算力支出的「硅谷数据消费指数」自 5 月高点大跌近 20%。自去年 12 月发布以来，这个指数曾翻倍增长，向来被视作观察这轮 7000 多亿美元 AI 投资热潮的晴雨表。

如今指数掉头向下，也给投资者敲响了警钟：用户对成本越来越敏感，大模型厂商的定价权可能正在失守；数千亿美金砸下去，最后到底能不能回本？市场的担忧也随之加深。

在这一转折点上，多空双方各执一词。看空者认为危险迫在眉睫。安联研究的测算显示，目前 AI 投资增幅与实际销售额增幅之间，有着高达 46% 的巨大鸿沟，这一失衡甚至比 2001 年电信泡沫破裂时还要严重。

看多者则觉得市场有些过度焦虑：虽然 Token 单价自 2023 年以来暴跌了九成，但用户的总支出却翻了一倍，说明降价成功把蛋糕做大了，目前的指数回落只是爆发式增长后的歇脚消化；况且到了推理应用阶段，AI 的实际投资回报会比训练阶段好看得多。

政策收紧正在变成企业用户的隐形负担。华盛顿近来动作频频，先是要求 OpenAI 分批推迟发布新模型，紧接着又对 Anthropic 模型的跨国准入进行审查，再加上欧洲《人工智能法案》落地，顶级前沿模型背负的监管压力越来越重。这正好给了各家企业 CFO 一个名正言顺的降本借口：既然用顶级模型这么麻烦，不如直接把业务切到不受政策波及的中低端模型上。

上游芯片市场也隐隐露出了分化的苗头。虽然高端 GPU 和高带宽内存 HBM 依然卖断了货，订单排到 2026 年，且供需紧张预计要到 2028 年才能真正缓解，但买家的胃口已经发生改变，大家不再一味争抢高规格的训练芯片，而是把更多预算留给专门做推理的硬件。这也让芯片行业的赢家版图重新洗牌。