Jackie-Y

AI product designer

Architecture → Crypto BD → building AI-native interfaces.

I design systems, then ship them.

@SyracuseU alum.

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

Why crypto was never quite the right game for me.

Not because I think the industry is bad.

I just don’t think it fits my nervous system, motivation, or way of working.

After moving across design, marketing and BD in Web3, I finally understand why.

- First, I always had another path available.

My material needs are fairly low, so money alone was never enough to make me go all in.

I joined opportunities to learn, meet people and participate—but I rarely felt the urge to bet everything on one outcome.

- Second, I am not built for volatility.

Losses stayed in my head. A red position could affect my mood, ruin my sleep, and eventually push me into selling at the worst moment.

Maybe that is the Taurus in me.

Either way, my nervous system was paying the price.

- Third, I became broad without becoming truly deep.

I moved from design to marketing, and then to BD.

I learned that information, timing, narrative and distribution often sit closer to money than pure craft.

That lesson was valuable—but it also pulled me away from my own craft.

I understood many parts of the game, but I never compounded one edge long enough.

My detached attitude protected me from obsession.

But in a market moving that fast, being too relaxed slowly became drift.

I could be surrounded by opportunity without turning it into something of my own.

AI feels different.

It gives me positive feedback through building.

An idea can become an interface, a brand, a video, a story or a working product.

I still believe I have a good brain.

My real weakness has never been intelligence or curiosity. It has been consistent execution.

AI feels different.

It gives me positive feedback through building.

An idea can become an interface, a brand, a video, a story or a working product.

I still believe I have a good brain.

My real weakness has never been intelligence or curiosity. It has been consistent execution.

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

@marclou bro, where are the ads on your body?

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

https://t.co/uDLKO029Mn

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

One of the hardest parts of design is finding a direction you actually like.

You can know the tools and understand the brief, yet still stare at a layout that doesn’t feel right.

A site worth bookmarking

It brings together design inspiration across websites, interfaces, branding, typography, motion, illustration, packaging, and more.

Here’s a simple way to use it in 10 minutes:
- Start with what’s bothering you.
Is the homepage too crowded? Are the buttons competing for attention? Does the brand feel forgettable?
- Pick one category.
Web for websites. Interface for dashboards. Branding and Typography for visual identity. Give yourself a specific place to look.
- Ask three questions about each reference.
What catches my eye first?
What’s the hierarchy?
Where have they deliberately left space?
- Save four or five examples, close the site, and return to your work.

Generating more options is easy now. Knowing which ones are worth pursuing still takes judgment.

Spend more time looking closely at finished work. Your next design might benefit more from that than from trying another AI tool.

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

@darijan___ Are you good at playing the dice game?

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

Yooo @alexandr_wang, how do you like this

[Yana Welinder @yanabana]

Preview of Vogue World San Francisco

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

@danhockenmaier Strong Dario

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

@Muse The best things in life is you are not in the waiting list

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

@venaInSV 有同感 感受到执行力其实才是最重要的 不能只是为了毕业

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

Hot take: a fully green GitHub contribution graph beats a perfect college attendance record.

[beeple @beeple]

CREDIT WHERE DUE

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

@alexandr_wang Bro, its not available in China

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

The phone won’t stop ringing.
The elevator has been waiting for you.
You missed your flight.

There’s no one here, but everything seems to be expecting you.

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

AI让创作更便宜，创作者会更值钱吗？

读到梦工厂联合创始人 Jeffrey Katzenberg 的一篇文章，有个故事吸引了我。

他看到一段由科技创业者展示的动画，灯光、构图、完成度都让他震撼。 同一天，一位认识了三十年的艺术家看过类似的视频，发消息问他： “这会是我们的终点吗？” 同一种技术，有人看见可能性，有人看见自己的职业生涯正在被改写。 而 Katzenberg 恰好站在两边。他在好莱坞做了几十年电影，后来又去了硅谷投资。

1. 行业变大，不代表每个人都能留下 他没有回避技术转型的代价。 梦工厂从手绘转向电脑动画时，有些艺术家学会了新工具，做出了职业生涯里最好的作品。也有人失去了自己做了一辈子的工作。 这可能是所有“技术会创造更多机会”的叙事里，最容易被略过的部分。 更多作品被制作出来，和原来的创作者能否继续靠这份手艺生活，是两件需要分��回答的事。

2. 当执行变便宜，判断力会被放大 Katzenberg 回忆，他们研究迪士尼留下的创作资料，反复看到的是角色、情感，以及怎样让观众相信一个故事。 具体工具一直在变，这些问题却始终存在。 我的理解是：当你可以很快生成几十个版本，选择本身就成了更重要的工作。 为什么留下这一版？ 这个镜头是真的动人，还是只是漂亮？ 一个故事已经讲完了，为什么还要加这一段？

3. 创作者需要参与制定规则 这篇文章最值得讨论的，是他给出的三个词： 署名、同意、报酬。 如果人的作品参与塑造了这些工具，那么创作者应该怎样被承认、怎样授权，又怎样获得回报？ 学会使用工具很重要。争取合理的合作条件，同样是创作者面对变化时可以做的事。

读完我一直在想： 以后，“我能把它做出来”可能越来越难成为唯一的优势。我们还需要回答：“我为什么要做这个？它值得谁花时间看？”

[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.

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

@timtimtim_eth 我也觉得在自己尝试做产品后 你就会想不断添加新的功能 以至于后面发现你忘了为什么开始

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

@jeffreykWNDR @grok
summarize this

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

@jesper_alpacka I would love to join if you still have one

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

Product Thinking ·01

Most bookmarking and read-it-later products optimize the same moment: capture.
One click to save.
AI-generated tags.
Automatic folders.
Instant summaries.
But making saving easier often creates a bigger, better-organized graveyard.

The real problem isn’t storage.
It’s that a saved link remembers what you found—but not why it mattered to you at that moment.
Weeks later, the context is gone. Even perfect search can’t recover an intention you never recorded.

That changed how I thought about the product.
Instead of asking:
“Where should this be organized?”
I wanted to ask:
“Why do you want to see this again?”
“When should it return?”
“What will you do with it?”

So I built Archive.
You save a link with a reason, choose when it should return, and decide what happens next: read, try, use, share—or let it go.
The reason becomes a retrieval cue for your future self.

Archive isn’t designed to help you collect more.
It’s designed to make saved information useful again.

Save with a reason.
Return with intention.

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

Fun prompt: upload Image 1 to GPT and ask, “Based on everything you know about me, fill both halves of this case.”

Image 2 is mine.

[Jackie-Y @Jackiastic]

I still like the old one, because you can feel the speed the with the shape. The new one is like a modern tech company

[Andreas Storm @avstorm]

McLaren got a rebrand