Creative Cyborg

Artists claimed they cared about freedom. Then AI gave more people the power to make things, and suddenly they wanted restrictions. That tells you everything. Some people love art. Some people loved being hard to compete with. Which side are you on?

It seems like AI detectors mostly just sense if your writing is within training distribution.

So angry about this sh*t 3 years working hard to build a US audience by providing value to you all, and now a f*cking algo is going to destroy everything I built and force me to move out. Come on, X. What the hell does it matter where you post from if the content is good?

@grok how much do you have to invest into a railroad before it turns a profit?

Grok Imagine is getting dangerously close to filmmaking 天下無双

🚨 O Walmart vai trocar TODAS as etiquetas de preço por telas digitais até o fim de 2026. O motivo oficial: "eficiência operacional". O detalhe que ninguém menciona: eles patentearam sistemas de IA para otimizar preços automaticamente, incluindo um que recomenda preços com base na demanda. A infraestrutura de surge pricing no supermercado está sendo construída na sua frente. E ainda tem gente que acha que inflação é temporária

A solution that could suit everyone would be for a flag of our country to appear when we reply to a post. It shouldn't appear in our own posts so as not to detract from the aesthetic appeal of our posts, but only in replies, regardless of our country.

This is what the end of the App era at the Apple App Store looks like. The Google Play Store is orders of magnitude worse. The concept of an App and the monetization is over. As I said to laughter in 2012: the only thing left is AI, a generic device and your voice.

Optimus

Every single person who picked up an AI filmmaking tool this year and actually made something is further ahead than 99% of the people with opinions about it. You made a thing. You told a story. You learned a new tool and bent it to your will. While everybody else was arguing about whether AI is “real art,” you were in the trenches figuring out prompts and pipelines and frame rates. I don’t care what some guy on Reddit thinks about your workflow. I don’t care what a film school professor who hasn’t shipped anything in 15 years thinks about your creative process. Those people don’t build. They comment. You are literally the first generation of filmmakers who can go from idea to screen without asking anyone’s permission. No studio. No gatekeeper. No six-figure budget standing between you and your story. That has never existed before in the history of filmmaking. So keep making things. Keep shipping. Keep getting better. The people who hate what you’re doing will eventually be working for the people who didn’t stop.

@claudeai When are you going to employ Claude to give us a flat pack linux version of the desktop app with cowork.

New in Claude Code: auto mode. Instead of approving every file write and bash command, or skipping permissions entirely, auto mode lets Claude make permission decisions on your behalf. Safeguards check each action before it runs.

Every time I see someone post “AI art can’t be copyrighted” I know they haven’t actually read a single ruling. The U.S. Copyright Office has been granting copyright registrations for AI-assisted artwork. They did it for a comic book. They did it for an image of a piece of cheese. Harvard Law wrote about it. What can’t be copyrighted is if you let an AI run completely autonomously with zero human creative input and then try to list the AI as the author. That’s what the Thaler case was about. The guy literally listed his AI as the sole creator and said he did nothing. A monkey once took a selfie and a court ruled it couldn’t be copyrighted because there was no human author. Nobody walked away from that case thinking cameras can’t produce copyrighted photos. But that’s exactly the logic people are using with the Thaler ruling. The Copyright Office’s own 2025 report says AI-assisted works qualify for copyright when the human provides substantial creative input. Selection, arrangement, editing, composition. You know, like what every filmmaker, graphic designer, and digital artist using AI tools is actually doing. But keep posting the misinformation. It makes it easier for the people actually building things to operate while you argue about stuff you didn’t read.

I thought this would be helpful for illustration purposes. The basic footprint of the just announced Tesla/SpaceX/XAI Terafab at Giga Texas looks to be about 2 million Sq Ft, but not sure the number of floors or total Sq Ft available for production.

The people crying about AI ruining cinema are the same people who spent the last decade ruining cinema without any help from technology. I just want to point that out before we go any further. I want to talk about something I've been thinking about for a while now, and I think a lot of people in my world are either in denial about it or celebrating it for the wrong reasons. AI is going to kill Hollywood. Not damage it. Not disrupt it. Kill the version of it that has existed for the last 40 years. And I need to be specific about what I mean because people hear "AI is killing Hollywood" and they think I'm talking about robots replacing actors. I'm not. I'm talking about something way more fundamental than that. I've spent the last four years building LOOR TV. I've been in the faith-based and independent film world for over a decade. And the thing nobody wants to say out loud is that the entire Hollywood system is built on controlling access. That's it. That's the business model. Try raising money for something that will make that control obsolete. It's impossible. You want to make a film? You need their money. You need their cameras. You need their stages. You need their distribution pipeline. You need their post-production facilities. And most importantly, you need their approval. And here's where it gets political, and I know this is going to make people on both sides uncomfortable. Hollywood has become a political machine. The left turned every writers room into an activist cell where your script has to pass ideological purity tests before it gets greenlit. Go talk to any working screenwriter off the record. They'll tell you stories that would make your head spin. But the conservative and faith-based world did the exact same thing in the other direction. I've been in the faith-based film world. I know it intimately. And the gatekeeping there is just as real. Your movie better check the right theological boxes. It better not be too edgy. It better have an altar call in the third act or the donors walk. I've watched genuinely talented people get squeezed out of both systems because they just wanted to tell a good story. Both of these systems require something that AI is about to make irrelevant: permission. Right now, today, a filmmaker with a laptop and about $100 a month in AI tools can generate concept art, storyboard an entire feature, produce voiceover with emotional range that would have required a recording studio, generate camera moves and VFX shots that would have been six figures two years ago, and distribute directly to audiences without a single gatekeeper touching it. Is it perfect? No. The uncanny valley is still real. AI-generated content in 2026 still looks like AI-generated content. But I've been working with these tools every single day and I can tell you the gap between "obviously AI" and "wait, that was AI?" is closing faster than anyone in Hollywood wants to admit. We're talking months, not years. I'm currently working on a project which is basically an AI filmmaking competition. Twenty-four hours, a room full of young high school and college indie filmmakers, AI tools from partnered tech companies, and a theater screening at the end. The whole point is to prove that the tools exist RIGHT NOW for independent creators to make real things. Not tech demos. Not proof of concepts. Actual watchable content. The people who should be most excited about this aren't the tech guys. It's every filmmaker who has spent the last decade being told "no" by people who don't know how to make anything themselves. It's every director who got passed over because they weren't politically connected. It's every screenwriter who was told their script was great but "not what we're looking for right now," which is code for "you don't fit our current ideological priorities." The studio system was built on scarcity. AI is abundance. Those two things cannot coexist. I know indie filmmakers who are quietly building things in their spare rooms that would have been impossible three years ago. And I know studio people who are genuinely panicking. I know which group I'm betting on. If you're someone who has been locked out of the system, and you've been waiting for your shot, I think it's here. The tools are available. The distribution platforms exist. The audiences are hungry for something that isn't sanitized corporate product. Stop waiting for permission from people who never wanted to give it to you in the first place. Go make something. And if you want to know more about the film competition. Let me know.

@fabianstelzer I've been getting these every night.

Claude: go to bed. You did great today. Seriously, log off! Enjoy your night. GPT: if you want, I’ll point you exactly to this surprisingly deep adjacent extra rabbit hole…

Thank you Sarah, my pleasure to come on the pod! And happy to do some more Q&A in the replies.

This is why vintage engineering still scares modern tech

AI is about to expose how many careers were built on artificial scarcity. Scarcity of skill. Scarcity of access. Scarcity of information. Now the walls are falling. And suddenly a lot of "experts" look very mortal.

Introducing Radiant: 80+ production-ready shaders and visual effects for the web. 0 dependencies, MIT license. - multiple color themes - ultra-realistic simulations - webgl and 2d canvas Pick one, copy source, integrate, ship. radiant-shaders.com

Every legacy media headline credited the other guys, just found out that Grok is the one that actually designed the final construct for Rose the dog that actually shrank her cancer by 75%