SinMente

mindless humans under the influence of AI.

[SinMente @sinmenteai]

@icreatelife https://t.co/Pw12qchabl

[SinMente @sinmenteai]

Based on “untrue” events.

AGENDA 2030 | New AI Miniseries | EP01

This whole spot was created using ONLY ONE reference image (Midjourney + Seedance 2.0). Comment "AGENDA" and I will send you the workflow and prompts.

Long version COMING SOON.

#aifilm #agenda2030 #indieanimation #animation #seedance

[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.

[SinMente @sinmenteai]

@Miriann_24 @higgsfield https://t.co/RTchBD2hdz

[SinMente @sinmenteai]

Based on “untrue” events.

AGENDA 2030 | New AI Miniseries | EP01

This whole spot was created using ONLY ONE reference image (Midjourney + Seedance 2.0). Comment "AGENDA" and I will send you the workflow and prompts.

Long version COMING SOON.

#aifilm #agenda2030 #indieanimation #animation #seedance

[GhostInTheHead 👻 @BegTheGhost]

The anti-AI crowd keeps pretending AI creators appeared out of nowhere.

A lot of the best ones were already filmmakers, 3D artists, designers, musicians, photographers, and painters before AI existed.

And yes, AI also gave new people the courage to create. Good.

The uncomfortable part is this: some AI artists are already better at your own craft without AI, and they still choose to use it because they love what it enables.

We’re not here because we couldn’t create before.

We’re here because now we can create more.

[SinMente @sinmenteai]

@c_valenzuelab @grok what does this means?

[SinMente @sinmenteai]

#NewProfilePic

[Cristóbal Valenzuela @c_valenzuelab]

“hey, did you use AI to make this? we can’t accept things made using AI.”

my brother in christ, that question makes no sense.

you woke up and unlocked your phone with AI-powered face recognition, checked your email that was filtered for spam by AI, read messages with AI-generated reply suggestions, typed with AI autocorrect and predictive text, listened to music recommended by AI, and then took a photo of your breakfast that was automatically denoised, sharpened, HDR-merged, color-corrected and enhanced by AI.

then you ordered lunch through an app that ranked restaurants with AI, estimated the delivery time with AI, optimized the driver's route with AI, and predicted demand to set prices with... guess what? AI.

you then went to work so you opened google and got AI-generated summaries. you translated a sentence with AI and then you edited a photo and a video with AI object selection and content-aware fill. then you had your first meeting (it's 10am already) and joined a zoom call with AI noise suppression, AI echo cancellation, AI background blur, AI live captions, and... AI speaker framing. you then wrote code (well, not really, you accepted code the AI wrote for you). after all the hard work you decided to then watched netflix and youtube because an AI decided what to show you and you paid for that service using a credit card with AI monitoring your transactions for fraud. then you ordered a Waymo, which is literally a car driven by AI, and walked past an AI-powered security camera.

Did I use AI? Of course, unless you live in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle you are using AI every single day.

But yes, absolutely, let's draw the sacred moral line at some completely random place.

[SinMente @sinmenteai]

Based on “untrue” events.

AGENDA 2030 | New AI Miniseries | EP01

This whole spot was created using ONLY ONE reference image (Midjourney + Seedance 2.0). Comment "AGENDA" and I will send you the workflow and prompts.

Long version COMING SOON.

#aifilm #agenda2030 #indieanimation #animation #seedance

[SinMente @sinmenteai]

@GoMining Colombia 🇨🇴

[GoMining @GoMining]

Almost two decades ago, they told you to lock it away. To treat Bitcoin like gold that never moves. But the scripture said cash.

Today the prophecy is fulfilled. GoBTC Pay integration toolkit is live — on-chain settlement, next block, mined by our own network.

No Lightning. No fiat conversion. Zero fees for you, 0.2% for merchants. Tell the places you love to join the movement and tag them in the comments.

Pay in Bitcoin. Stay in Bitcoin. Blessed be the block.

[GoMining @GoMining]

Some people love gambling their money.

Simple Earn prefers clockwork.

From 3.03% APR on BTC.
Predictable.
Every 4 hours.

What’s your strategy in this market: degen mode or steady stacking? 👇

[GoMining @GoMining]

◾️It started with Humans.

Then came Sentinels, Cryptiles, Luminars…
and now Magmars rise from Pyroterra 🌋

The GoMiners universe keeps expanding, and this is only Chapter 5 of 10.

Which collection stands out the most to you?

[SinMente @sinmenteai]

Érase una vez en La Casa de Nariño……

(cualquier parecido a la realidad es pura coincidencia)

Escúchala completa en Spotify o donde sea.

#eleccionescolombia

[Cristóbal Valenzuela @c_valenzuelab]

You can look at the history of media through the cost of producing a credible frame. I call this the cost of a frame.

Not a good story. Not a good movie. Not a meaningful work of art. Just the frame itself. The thing on screen. The difference between something that feels like a home video and something that feels like it belongs inside a film, a streaming show, a commercial, or a music video. That’s the cost of a frame.

Under that lens, most media falls into four buckets:

1. Low production value, high cost
2. Low production value, low cost
3. High production value, high cost
4. High production value, low cost

A lot of media history is the movement from the first bucket to the fourth.

For a long time, making even bad media was expensive. Cameras were expensive. Film was expensive. Editing was expensive. Distribution was expensive. Most people had no practical way to make anything, let alone anything that looked good. Home movies existed, but they looked like home movies. They were personal, not cinematic.

Then cameras got cheap. Editing got cheap. Distribution got close to free. Smartphones gave everyone a camera, and the internet gave everyone a channel. This moved us into the second bucket: low production value, low cost.

That is the world of most internet video. It is the world of YouTube, TikTok, livestreams, vlogs, reaction videos, tutorials, memes, screenshots, podcasts, and infinite casual media. It is also Sturgeon’s Law: ninety percent of everything is crud. The internet did not make everything good. It made everything publishable.

But there was still one protected category: high production value, high cost.

That has been the dominant model for most of modern media. Movies, television, prestige streaming, advertising, music videos, visual effects, animation, branded content. The expensive frame remained expensive. IOW, even when cameras got cheaper, the frame itself did not. A good camera does not give you production design. It does not give you lighting, locations, wardrobe, extras, props, actors, blocking, set decoration, continuity, effects, or time. A Soderbergh or a Scorsese frame does not look expensive only because of the camera. It looks expensive because of everything organized around the camera.

This is the last expensive layer. And at this point is pretty obvious AI has begun to basically collapsed that layer.

The important thing about generative media is not that it lets people make videos faster. Speed matters, but it is not the main thing. The more interesting things is that it lets people create frames with production value detached from the traditional cost structure of production. Every frame is a painting and everyone can paint. You can now generate images and videos that borrow the visual language of expensive media without needing the machinery that used to produce that language.

That changes what kinds of stories can be made. Not just big stories. Small ones. Stupid ones. Personal ones. Stories too specific, too local, too strange, too private, or too unserious to ever justify a crew, a budget, or a production process.

That is what makes the fourth bucket interesting: high production value, low cost.

The is YouTube-scale creation with cinematic-grade frames. It is the production value of expensive media applied to the subject matter of everyday life.

A blockbuster frame used to require a blockbuster premise, because the cost had to be justified. You did not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars making a cinematic sequence about two dogs in an apartment building that hate each other. You did not build a world, light a scene, design costumes, create tension, and render atmosphere for a joke between neighbors.

Now you can. And that is the point.

To test this, I made a video in around twenty minutes. My dog, Henry, an Irish Terrier, and my neighbor’s dog, Milhouse, a Corgi, cannot stand each other. They cannot see or smell each other without reacting. Whenever one notices the other, they bark like they are about to destroy each other.

So I made a dramatization of what I imagine goes through their minds when they sense each other.

That video does not matter because it is going to become a movie. It matters because it would never have been worth producing before. The subject is too small. The audience is too specific. The premise is too silly. But AI makes it possible to give that tiny personal moment the visual treatment of something much larger.

That is new.

Photography went through a version of this. For a long time, photography had friction. Film had limits. Cameras were separate objects. Developing photos took time and money. Then smartphones made photography ambient. Once the cost of taking a picture fell close to zero, the meaning of photography changed. People did not simply take cheaper versions of the same photos. They started photographing receipts, meals, outfits, parking spots, whiteboards, pets, faces, jokes, injuries, sunsets, strangers, and themselves a thousand times over.

The medium expanded because the cost collapsed. And now the same thing is starting to happen to moving images, but at the level of constructed reality rather than captured reality.

Smartphones made it cheap to capture what was in front of you. AI makes it cheap to construct what is not.

The internet gave everyone distribution. The smartphone gave everyone capture. AI gives everyone production value.

This does not mean everything becomes good. Most of it will be bad. Maybe even worse than before, because now the bad work will look expensive. Sturgeon’s Law does not go away. It scales.

When production value becomes abundant, the scarce thing moves somewhere else if you want to make something that really touches people. Direction becomes scarce. Point of view becomes scarce. Story becomes scarce. The ability to decide what is worth making becomes more important when making is easy.

This is why low-budget films like El Mariachi from Robert Rodriguez with a budget of $ 7K or Darren Aronofsky’s Pi with a budget of $ 134K are still useful examples. They prove that production value was never the same thing as artistic value. A film can have limited resources and still matter if the idea, structure, energy, and execution are strong. Story remains the core. AI does not change that. It just changes who gets to attempt the high production frame.

In the old model, production value acted like a gate. It determined who could participate in certain kinds of visual storytelling. You could have a great idea, but if the idea required spectacle, scale, atmosphere, period detail, fantasy, visual effects, or cinematic polish, you needed money. A lot of money.

This is why the fourth bucket matters the most. High production value, low cost is a cultural change. It means the expensive frame is no longer reserved for institutions, studios, agencies, or large teams. It can be used for a personal memory, a joke, a dream, a fake commercial, a family story, a neighborhood myth, a political argument, an ad for your business, a children’s bedtime story, or two dogs that hate each other. The cinematic frame is becoming casual. Like photography.

That’s how mediums change. They do not only change at the top, where the best artists make masterpieces. They change when ordinary people start using them for ordinary things.

The camera became world-changing not only because it made great photography possible, but because it made photography normal. The internet became world-changing not only because it created new media companies, but because publishing became normal. AI media becomes world-changing when production value becomes normal.

[GoMining @GoMining]

Welcome to the future of money.

GoMining empowers people worldwide to unlock Bitcoin's full potential — we enable our customers to earn and use Bitcoin effortlessly and securely, all in one app.

Are you ready to join the movement?

[SinMente @sinmenteai]

CHOOSE YOUR FIGHTER 🇨🇴

La batalla final @AlvaroUribeVel vs @petrogustavo

PARTE 2: ???

#petro #uribe #eleccionescolombia #aifilm

[GoMining @GoMining]

⚡New Improved Bonus Miner

Turn your activity into long-term mining power and build your miner step by step as you stay active.

With your new Bonus Miner you can:
⚡ Grow your miner’s power through tasks
💪 Build progress over time as you stay active
🎨 Unlock customization and traits as you go

Start with simple tasks and watch your miner become part of your overall mining setup, contributing to real BTC rewards.

[SinMente @sinmenteai]

@runwayml Full workflow breakdown video coming soon 📎

#RunwayBigAdContest

Watch the ad in high resolution here:
https://t.co/0kaP20bE5o

[SinMente @sinmenteai]

SINCE FOREVER.
Our submission for the @runwayml BIG Ad Contest.

The product: Cinch Paper Clips 📎

#RunwayBigAdContest

The process 🧵👇

[SinMente @sinmenteai]

@runwayml Workflow [3/3]:

5️⃣ Music: Crafted deep, tense tribal horns with ElevenLabs to build a visceral, primal feeling.

6️⃣ Edit: Where the magic happened, assembling everything together with care and love.