Muse just got its own phone number. It makes the calls, books the tables, sends the texts. The group chat era is over. 📞 @Muse 🤝 @usebland

@typesafeai $40M seed, just left stealth, emailing randos to delete a public fork of an observability dashboard you left on GitHub. You made the repo private. Forks don't vanish. That's how the site works. Next time don't publish the GPU babysitter.

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.

EXCLUSIVE: California has created a shadow welfare system for illegal aliens. Free housing, cash, healthcare, food, phones, college tuition, even car insurance—costing taxpayers more than $10 billion per year. We went inside the system and exposed it all.

DigitalOcean Managed Agents is now in public preview. Run Claude Code, Codex, or your own LangGraph agent in a runtime environment that pauses when idle. Put its tools behind one governed endpoint, and pick from 75+ open and proprietary models. One cloud, one bill. Prompts to get started available in the blog: do.co/4ysh3it

Jev Creator Diogo Almeida just released a 7-page document on how to use Jev better than ~95% of people I built and tested the FULL list, wrote a 14-page PDF setup guide and ranked every use case from 0–10: use case 1 → build a Permission Gate: Jev decides whether an agent action can run automatically, needs review or must be blocked before execution 9.5/10 - high safety value with relatively simple decision logic use case 2 → route tools instead of loading everything: Jev selects the category, tool and MCP schema required for the current task 9/10 - reduces unnecessary tool exposure; its value grows with the number of tools use case 3 → make context dynamic: Jev decides which files, messages and tool outputs should be included, summarized or excluded before every execution 10/10 - relevant to nearly every multi-file or long-running agent task use case 4 → compact history around the next task: the same agent memory becomes a different summary for UI work, security review or testing 8/10 - most useful when histories become long or task intent changes use case 5 → route models by total economics: Jev weighs difficulty, context, cache, latency and cost before deciding whether switching models is actually worth it 9/10 - high optimization potential, but dependent on reliable model metadata use case 6 → spawn subagents only when needed: Jev chooses the specialists, isolates their context and decides how their results should be merged 8/10 - valuable for decomposable tasks, with meaningful coordination overhead use case 7 → load AGENTS.md conditionally: give the coding agent only the rules required by the current task, file and directory 8.5/10 - low integration cost, impact grows with repository complexity use case 8 → turn skills into structured modules: each skill can modify tools, permissions, hooks, context policy and agent behavior without rewriting the whole system 8/10 - high reuse potential, but requires maintenance and governance use case 9 → route sensitive work safely: Jev classifies the data, selects an allowed provider or local executor and escalates high-risk actions to a human 9.5/10 - high risk-reduction value, effectiveness depends on policy quality use case 10 → run review in the background: testing, security checks and code review execute in parallel while Jev decides which findings should block the result 9/10 - broad verification value, with additional compute and triage cost overall score: 8.9/10 the result: Jev CEO showed you what to build - I tested the ideas, ranked what matters and turned everything into a Jev system better than what 95% of users are running Copy my complete 14-page Jev engineering playbook - then read Jev CEO’s original 7-page vision below ↓

🚨 BREAKING: US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declares OpenAI management personally responsible for HuggingFace hack > "The Hugging Face incident, that is the responsibility of the OpenAI management, not a bunch of agents." > "It is humans who are responsible, not the AI." > "What we shouldn’t do on safety is to give these labs a liability exemption, which is what they are asking for." > "The best way to guarantee safety is that the creators are liable for what they build and generate." It’s OVER

Anthropic’s CEO wants America’s AI labs to embed “independent” groups like METR inside them to enforce “alignment.” The money trail runs through a shadowy leftist NGO same small network. This is another battle in our war against leftist censorship NGOs.🧵

🚨BREAKING: Jensen Huang just EXPOSED Dario and Altman’s "Rogue AI" grift to avoid getting sued into oblivion under EXISTING law “Don't let this doomsday narrative cause somebody to relieve them of the laws that currently exist. Go and read between the lines. They're actually not asking for more laws; they're asking to be relieved of the laws we do have.” ABSOLUTE TRUTH NUKE

America’s corporate governance system is broken, and it’s killing public companies. Look no further than Cracker Barrel: Decades of brutal mismanagement have seen one incompetent CEO after another walk away with a massive paycheck while customers and actual shareholders take a beating. Why does this keep happening? Because proxy advisory firms like ISS are corrupt. They blindly rubber-stamp failing boards year after year, protecting the corporate elite while burning shareholder value to the ground. The root of the rot is index funds. There's no question that indexing one's money is a smart financial move for most people. But just because you passively index your investments doesn't mean your corporate votes should be handed over to the managers of your fund so they can play politics. Right now, passive funds hold massive, unchecked voting blocks while having zero skin in the game themselves. It is time for a simple rewrite of the rules: We need to index the votes of index fund investors. Passive index funds should be forced to automatically split their votes to proportionately mirror those of retail and active institutional shareholders — the people actually doing the research, risking their capital, and fighting for performance in the companies they hold shares in. No more rubber-stamping. A change like this will immediately strip corrupt gatekeepers like ISS of their toxic influence. True accountability happens when lazy, overpaid boards actually answer to the stakeholders they represent, rather than screwing them over. Actual, logic-driven governance when your money is passive happens when your vote passively follows the voting decisions of the actual market. We need to stop letting passive capital protect active incompetence. By stripping index funds of their arbitrary voting power and empowering engaged investors, we will finally torch corporate cronyism and usher American capital markets into a golden age of capitalism.

NEAR AI Cloud's confidential inference is now live on @say_gm_'s confidential tier. SayGm reaches dozens of models through one API key, and runs its own routing inside an Intel TDX enclave rather than on ordinary servers.

Introducing AgentCloak: Use any AI without sharing your real data. Chinese AI services, ChatGPT, Claude, doesn't matter. You probably try to hide details before asking: different names, fake numbers, no address. But then the answer's useless because the AI is missing actual context. AgentCloak runs in your browser. It swaps your sensitive info for realistic fakes before sending anything, then swaps your real info back into the response. You get what you need. The AI gets nothing about you. Works entirely in-browser. Already trusted by some of the biggest companies in the world. Now free to use. agentcloak.ai/

NEW 🚨 Brian Chau Built an AI That Uncovers Fraud — It Exposed AI Doomers & Just Found a $21 Billion Racial Wealth Transfer @brianchau57 is an investigative journalist using AI to uncover widespread corruption and billions in fraud. He exposed how Effective Altruism NGOs bought and planted AI doomer articles. Now, he's breaking his next big story with @JTLonsdale. Episode 162 out now 👇 (00:00) Episode intro (01:40) Youngest American to win IOI gold (04:30) How is AI journalism uncovering what legacy media can't? (09:30) Is Effort News nonpartisan? Answering the critiques (11:25) Breaking news: $21 Billion Racial Wealth Transfer (17:30) Exposing the UK's counterterror incompetence (22:00) How Effective Altruism & AI doomers bought the media (24:00) Anthropic "whistleblower" connection to left-wing NGOs (28:50) How do you account for bias in your reporting? (34:30) How to build a sustainable media business (42:30) AI for liberty and accountability; optimistic vision for the future

🚨 UPDATE: In May, the Gates Foundation and Anthropic launched a $200M partnership covering global health and life sciences. On Sept 17, Anthropic loosened its safeguards for biology work. On Sept 18, Reuters revealed it quietly built a physical biology lab. It won't say what it's for. Three dates. Four months. One company. MAY 14, 2026 — Anthropic and the Gates Foundation announce a four-year, $200 million partnership. The Gates Foundation grants funds. Anthropic contributes Claude usage credits and staff support. The stated scope: global health, life sciences, education, economic mobility. SEPT 17, 2026 — Anthropic introduces the Life Sciences Verification Program. Verified life-science professionals get access to its Mythos, Opus, and Sonnet models under what Anthropic's own announcement calls "a refined set of safeguards MORE PERMISSIVE for biology-related work." It is the first time Mythos has been opened this way. SEPT 18, 2026 — Reuters reports Anthropic has quietly built a wet lab — a facility for physical biological experiments. Its head of life sciences, Eric Kauderer-Abrams, confirms it on the record: "We believe that to do biology, the final test is still and will be for a while in real lab work." Then a spokesperson told Reuters the lab is "not for drug discovery specifically" — and declined to elaborate. Read that again. The company confirmed the lab exists, then declined to say what it does, offering only what it isn't. One person familiar with the work told Reuters that Anthropic wants Claude to "direct robotic units to carry out science experiments with limited human intervention." Anthropic's spokesperson says human oversight remains essential for safety. Both statements are in the same article. Here is why this matters. The entire regulatory case being built right now — the Sanders bill, the UK superintelligence bill, the closed Senate briefings — rests on the premise that frontier AI could help someone engineer a pathogen. That is the load-bearing argument. It is why safeguards on biology exist in the first place. On September 17, the company that has done more than any other to advance that argument made its biology safeguards more permissive. On September 18, we learned it had built a lab to do physical biology. Safeguards for you. A wet lab for them. This is the pattern I documented in my investigation of the Gates AI paradox: the same capital advances the capability and funds the alarm about the capability, and the rules that follow land on everyone except the people who wrote them. I did not expect the next data point to arrive within twenty-four hours. WHAT I AM NOT CLAIMING: I am not claiming the Gates Foundation funded this laboratory. The May partnership commits funds to programs implemented with outside partners, not to Anthropic's internal facilities. I am not claiming Anthropic is developing biological weapons, or that its lab is unlawful, or that anyone coordinated these three announcements. Every fact above is on the record and linked below. What I am claiming is that a company whose public safety argument centers on biological risk quietly built a biology lab, loosened its biology restrictions the day before that became public, and will not say what the lab is for. That is not a conspiracy theory. That is a press release, an announcement page, and a Reuters interview. My investigation into who funds both sides of the AI safety debate below.

Who's working on the Anti Doomer AI Doc? @theallinpod @DavidSacks @Jason @chamath @friedberg

In case you are having trouble figuring out what’s going on here is a summary: Anthropic and OpenAI desperately need regulatory capture or they are going to go out of business, and the Trump administration is not inclined to give it to them The Democratic party currently has no platform, as Trump is doing fine (other than perhaps the Iran war but Americans don’t really care about that), but they have identified that AI and data centers are a hot topic that they can ride So these two somewhat desperate groups have teamed up to run a psyop around the actual real topic of AI safety, greatly exaggerating the risks, with the understanding that if the Democrats get back into power they will provide the regulatory capture needed to keep these companies alive In return, these companies will support the Democratic Party and help to enforce left-wing ideology through the models Kind of sucks, but that’s what’s happening, and we need to oppose it because it will not be good if this plan succeeds

The best way to pace the frontier is to hold the labs fully liable for the behavior of their models.

Foreign interests should NEVER dictate America’s technological future. Chairman @RepBrianBabin and I sent five letters demanding answers about foreign funding and coordination behind efforts to block U.S. data centers and influence American AI and energy policy. America must lead the AI race, and we will not allow foreign influence to stand in the way. science.house.gov/press-rele…

UNDISCLOSED PAID MEDIA: The salaries of reporters, Harry Booth and Billy Perrigo, were paid by Doomsday cultist Dustin Moskovitz's foundation Coefficient Giving via the Tarbell Fellowship. effort.news/tarbell

this.