o yes… we’re back in action and we’ll reset usage limits for all paid users across codex and ChatGPT work sorry about the brief disruption! (and yes we have a special spare codex when things are down to help us out)

OH: “The bond market is saying that @TheStalwart got his wish, except that we got right wing MMT (aka the Iran War)”

5/ And some of our favorite productivity connectors, with plenty more in the works: @Box / @github / @meetgranola / @NotionHQ

The Internet Needs Crypto to Survive AI: piped.video/watch?v=TKVY4hVA… One of the most exciting, and underrated, developments in crypto atm revolves around this @Bankless conversation with @eastdakota of @Cloudflare. ~20% of all websites are routed through Cloudflare, and in this conversation Matthew tells us that the business model of the Web is under attack. To put it simply, agentic traffic is exploding, and agents don't click on ads, but ads underpin much of the "free" stuff we get online. The infrastructure is creaking under agent load. Matthew's assertion is that microtransactions, at a scale not previously seen, will be needed to pay for access to content, as the advertising model of the Web falls apart with agents. Crypto people have talked about microtransactions forever, but it was for people, which never worked, whereas we're now contemplating it for agents. He says Cloudflare handles ~500M requests per second, and that 1-10% of those requests may be suitable for this microtransaction model. A blockchain environment is the only payment network that could theoretically handle this scale, and it would need to hit 5-50M TPS. 5-50M TPS in prod dwarfs anything yet attempted in crypto, and is far beyond anything TradFi can handle. There are very few blockchain environments that could conceivably provide this throughput. Just as important as the scale, is the model and trust assumptions. While Cloudflare may roll this out as a solution for its customers first, what's implicit here is the potential for an entirely new business model for the Web. If Cloudflare walks this path, I hope that what they build has permissionless validation, allowing for anyone to audit the network. Cloudflare has been a torch bearer for the open Internet, and so it only follows that if they're to pioneer a new business model for the Web, that the architecture be an open network. Doing so will engender the most trust, goodwill, and adoption in the long run. Web 3.0 is dead, long live Web 3.0.

Maybe instead of generating video from scratch we’ll have LLMs animate scenes and then use diffusion models as more like a rendering layer

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.

I fully support removing the UN Charter’s references to Japan and Germany as “enemy states.” Neither country is perfect, but both have been responsible members of the international community for many decades. Russia, meanwhile, was gifted the Soviet Union’s seat at the UN and has waged a brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. The Chinese Communist Party, whose forces played a minuscule role in defeating Japan when China’s Nationalist army did nearly all of the fighting, now preposterously claims the mantle of wartime victor while rewriting that history and brutally repressing people in Tibet and Xinjiang. It is long past time for the Charter to reflect the world as it is. If amending it proves too difficult, the UN Security Council and General Assembly should, at the very least, pass resolutions declaring that these “enemy state” provisions no longer apply.

Read the deep dive on Zones, private Tempo blockspace, by @varunsrin!

Meta: “Turn your API to a Muse connector!” OpenAI: “Astra can operate your computer!” Anthropic: “Claude is coding its replacement!” xAI: “Grokbot Voice talks!” Apple: 🪗

Please welcome GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna to the GPT-6 universe. GPT-6 Sol and Luna build on the advances behind GPT-6 Astra, bringing much of its strengths into faster and more affordable models to support work at scale. We’ve also made caching and inference more efficient, and we’re passing the savings directly to you: 50% lower API prices for Sol and Luna compared with GPT‑5.6 promotional pricing.

I found some old journal entries. This one is probably circa ~2006, just titled "Scrap:" I moved to Pittsburgh at the right time in my life, but at the wrong time of year. Coming from the west coast, I was actually naive enough to be excited about the prospect of winter. I imagined nothing but snowball fights, snow angles, icicles on the eves, and that muffled crunch of loose snow under your feet. I thought I'd be doing nothing but riding sleds and watching snowflakes drift down past the street lights at night. It turns out, however, that winter doesn't quite resemble this fantasy, and that it's also the kind of thing you really want to ease into. The house we moved into didn't have working utilities, much less effective heating, and January wasn't the best time to be standing in the basement with a pipe wrench, doing my best to install gas lines without being able to feel my fingers. There were days when I literally couldn't apply the thread sealant to the black iron, because it had frozen in the tube. So we had this house, and it was a wreck, and it was well below zero. But it was beautiful that we had anything at all. Just like a squat, the first order of business was to get something that approximated a flushing toilet. After that, we started tearing out walls, putting in plumbing, and trying to eek everything that we could out of forgotten pallets and scrap lumber. At one point we pulled a cast-iron bathtub out of a bathroom, and not having any immediate place to put it, temporarily set it outside -- right up against the back of the house. The next morning I stepped out back, and it was gone. Totally vanished. It hadn't even been 24 hours, and somehow a really heavy cast-iron bathtub had disappeared from our back yard. It seemed like such a random theft -- who in their right mind would spontaneously coordinate an operation to move something of that size? I didn't yet realize that where San Francisco has scroungers, Pittsburgh has scrappers. The hunt isn't for kitchy coffee mugs or spare furniture. It's for raw metals. So several months later when we pulled out another cast-iron bathtub, this one with a large hole rusted through the bottom of it, I knew just how to get rid of it. We simply put it in the back yard. The next day I was looking out the window when I saw an old pickup truck drive through the ally. It had all kinds of metal pipes and appliance parts jutting out the plywood sides which had been erected to try and contain as much metal in the bed of the truck as possible. Two guys hopped out, sized up the tub, and wrangled it into the truck. They continued around the block and pulled up next to a dumpster that we'd been steadily filling with moldy carpet out front. I waved. "ALRIGHT IF WE PULL THIS DUCTWORK OUT OF THIS DUMPSTER?!" "No problem at all." Upon closer inspection, these two were quite the team. One bulky, one scrappy, both getting old. They almost reminded you of something out of a Walter Matthou movie, where they'd both gone hard of hearing, so all communication between them was done by yelling -- even if they were standing only inches apart. I gathered that one was named Ron, the other Wade, and that their voices were continually horse. After they'd gotten the ductwork into the truck, one of them looked the house up and down. "SAY, YOU GOT ANYTHING ELSE IN THERE?" "Well," I said, "we do have an old broken gas furance in the basement." Wade looked at Ron. "YOU WANNA GO CHECK IT OUT RON?" "ALRIGHT I'LL GO CHECK IT OUT!" So Ron followed me down into the basement. He jerked the furnace around to get a feel for the weight, nodded to himself, and counted the steps up to the first floor. Back outside, Ron and Wade had a quick conference. "HOW'S IT LOOK RON?" "IT'S HEAVY WADE. REAL HEAVY. 17 STEPS." They mulled it over, before turning to where I was standing two feet away and yelling "ALRIGHT WE'LL DO IT." I went down with them, to supervise, but was quickly roped into the heavy lifting. The first thing I noticed was that moving scrap for a living doesn't make you a very good mover. They didn't even bother trying to tip the furnace down, and instead just knocked the thing straight over with a resounding crash. We sort of carry/dragged it over to the steps, where the real work began. The stairway from the basement back up to the first floor is just wide enough for the furnace. There are 13 steps up, then a small landing for a 180degree turn, then the remaining 4 steps to the first floor. Our original linup was with Wade (the big one) in front of the furnace, with me and Ron (the scrappy ones) below the furnace. These guys were not afraid to make noise. Every time they went to lift, they were moaning or yelling or cursing almost embarrasingly loudly. We tried moving it up a few steps before Wade finally shouted "RON! YOU KNOW I CAN'T DO THIS! I'VE ONLY GOT THREE TOES!" I wondered if I'd heard Wade correctly, and he responded "the sugars" when I looked at him somewhat quizzically. So Ron and Wade traded places, such that now Ron was in front and I was down below with the big guy. In fact, both him and I could barely fit in the stairwell at the same time. We'd lift a step at a time, and it took us a solid 45 minutes to make it up the first flight and into the landing. The furnace just barely fit through the doorway from the stairwell to the landing, but a pipe jutting out of it got stuck in a wall. So Wade and I were left standing on the basement side of the furnace, with the whole thing blocking the door, while Ron was out on the landing side of the furnace. Suddenly, Wade turned to me and asked "HEY, IS THERE ANOTHER WAY OUT OF THIS BASEMENT?" "Actually, no this is the only entrance." He started looking around frantically. "I... I... I GOTTA GET OUT OF HERE! I'M CLAUSTRAUPHOBIC! GET ME THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!" He continued yelling, but also started trying to pull the furnace back down towards us, which would have crushed us for sure. I could barely fit in the starewall with Wade as it was, but now I was getting seriously squished up against the wall in all the hysterics. I tried to calm him down, told him to take a deep breath, but nothing was working. I couldn't decide whether I should continue trying to help work things out in the stairwell, or just bolt back down into the basement and take cover. Ron peered through, saw what was happening, and yelled "I'LL GO GET THE AXE!" "The what?" I thought. "RON! YOU CAN'T LEAVE ME LIKE THIS! YOU CAN'T LEAVE ME!" While the furnace did fit squarely in the door frame, there was a small 2ft gap between the top of the furnace and the top of the door frame. "Wade!" I yelled, "Wade! Why don't you try going over it!" Without a microsecond of hesitation, this 250+lb guy immediately started scrambling up the furnace, trying to squeeze through the opening in the top. I sort of shrugged to myself, sighed, then started pushing on his ass, trying to help wedge him through the opening. Eventually the bulk of him was directly on top of the furnace, and when Ron came back he was able to help pull him through. He then went down face-first over the other side. But now I was stuck in the basement, with these two lunatics on the other side. The offending pipe that was preventing the furnace from moving any further needed to be resolved, and Ron was holding a full-sized axe. "Now Ron, I've got some wrenches in that room over there, you could-" WHAM! The axe came down on the pipe, ripping out a section of drywall along with it. They jerked it around the bend, shoved it up the remaining steps, and it was out the front door. "Say," I asked, "how much do you get for steel, anyway?" "FOUR CENTS A POUND." This is, basically, life in Pittsburgh.

I used to be jealous that AI companies weren’t reaching out to put me on cool scientific advisory boards, then I realized that the very last thing you do in your career is have an AI company put you on a scientific advisory board.