Livestream Alert: Using Comfy to Go Beyond the Models: Custom Workflows for Commercial and Film Production Join us for a conversation with @eyefyah (Creative Director) and Ariel Klevecz (Tech Lead/Content Automation) from Tool, on using ComfyUI as a flexible production tool rather than a single model or plugin. Instead of centering on any one model, Ezra and Ariel will walk through how Tool builds custom Comfy workflows around what a specific project actually needs, and how those workflows get integrated into traditional filmmaking, VFX, and post-production pipelines. What we'll cover: Building custom Comfy workflows around what a production actually needs, not what a model does by default Precise first-person hand/performance control and extreme-resolution outpainting with Wan 2.1 (AMD CES film) Audio-reactive generation and letting a song's loudness constrain what Wan paints, frame-chained (Flower) Comfy in a commercial pipeline generating a different world per execution (Starburst) Comfy-generated compositing layers, stop-motion, and title sequences moving between Comfy, After Effects, and Flame (Everywhere/Nowhere)

🌙 Tonight's thesis — picks frozen Monday Jul 27 The index frame: SPX band 7,371–7,421, lean CALLS (skew +0.08) — the tape earns a bullish tilt. Fed-liquidity read: neutral (z -0.4, 20d -0.0). Standing back from: Hyperscalers (-4.3%/5d), Software (-2.4%/5d), Power / DC Infra (-2.2%/5d) — longs there are discounted until the 5-day trend itself recovers (a one-day pause is a dead-cat, the worst state in our backtest). The top of the book, and why: - CVX CALL (risk-adj vote +1.4) — Net edge here — running into CVX's upcoming catalyst (buy-the-rumor), though Energy is soft. (also: MACD) - MCD PUT (risk-adj vote -1.1) — Net edge here — fading MCD's momentum (though Defensive is bid today). (also: Wall Position) - NFLX CALL (risk-adj vote +1.1) — Net edge here — running into NFLX's upcoming catalyst (buy-the-rumor), as money rotates into Growth Tech. (also: 3-Day Up Streak) - BRK-B CALL (risk-adj vote +1.0) — Net edge here — running into BRK-B's upcoming catalyst (buy-the-rumor). (also: Pre-Event Run-up) Risk posture: 33 calls / 35 puts screened (puts carry a ×1.25 evidence bar — the tape drifts up). Every vote here is risk-adjusted (σ+β), liquidity-taxed, factor-capped at 3 per correlated complex, and stripped of earnings coin-flips. High conviction means diverse agreement per unit of risk, not loudness. The trade: buy ~3:50 PM ET, sell ~9:40 AM ET. 📋 The full board — 33 bet-up / 35 bet-down, ranked in the card 🐲 $SPX #Stocks# #OptionsTrading#

The loudest voices stoking fears about AI dangers have made tremendous headway in the past two weeks. AI technology has not taken some unexpected, dangerous turn, but the hype around it — propelled by what appears to be a well orchestrated PR campaign — has drummed up considerable fear. I worry that it represents a setback for our field. I have written frequently that fears of AI are overhyped. AI’s capabilities can be uncannily human-like and unpredictable, and it’s rational to worry when people who are directly involved express concerns. But I see the problems as a sign of the engineering work that ahead, rather than insurmountable barriers or the sky falling. AI technology continues to advance — which is a good thing! — but technical advances, poorly understood by the public, give those who seek to generate hype repeated opportunities to do so. First, I don’t see any step up in the risk of human extinction from AI compared to a few months ago. The theories about this remain the same fantastical, science fiction scenarios as a few months ago. The biggest change in AI risk is its cybersecurity capabilities — a topic which we should take seriously — but this, too, will not lead to the end of the world. The most notable recent event leading to increased fear was when an OpenAI team deployed an agent swarm that hacked into Hugging Face. Much of the popular press contained significant hype. For example, some publications reported that a swarm of 1,200 agents carried out the attack. While this was technically accurate, as I write this, I have about 1,300 processes running on my laptop. Yes, the ability to get large swarms of agents to work in parallel on a task is a significant technical advance, And, in computing, many processes run at the same time. So this shouldn’t be seen as some magical capability. Additionally, OpenAI’s buggy sandboxing and monitoring processes were key to enabling this incident. Fixing these bugs and putting in place improved monitoring would be appropriate fixes, not pausing AI. There are many well known ways to attack software systems. The main advantage of AI agents is that they are relentless. They will tirelessly try many tactics — and have the patience to chain vulnerabilities together — that previously would have taken an infeasible amount of human effort. But in the long term, I believe the advantage will lie with defenders (because they have more information with which to identify bugs, which they can fix), but the cyber-threat landscape has changed significantly. There are still bottlenecks to identifying and exploiting a vulnerability. AI agents still have to try a lot of things to see what works, and taking these actions takes time and might be detected by defenders. This is why, even though it is now easy to obtain versions of leading open weight models that have had their guardrails removed or weakened, so they will not refuse to try to execute cyber attacks, the world has not ended. I am also concerned about the anthropomorphization of AI in a lot of reporting, where LLMs and agents are unnecessarily treated as if they were people. If I wield a hammer, miss a nail, and accidentally dent the wall, it’s not the fault of the hammer. The problem lies in how I used the hammer. Similarly, if I prompt an agent and it hacks into someone else’s system, the responsibility lies with me, not the agent. Of course, we want to build systems that are as safe and predictable as possible. (For example, an unsafe hammer would be one whose head randomly flies off under normal use.) Today’s agentic systems are not predictable, but I see no reason why, by applying sound engineering practices, we won’t be able to make them extremely safe to use. One new element in the forecasts of AI-enabled doom is AI companies disclaiming responsibility for their own products. “I didn’t do it; my out-of-control agent did!” There’s a balance to be struck between the responsibility of the tool maker and the tool user, but when something goes wrong, let’s hold the people building and/or using the hammer responsible, rather than the hammer. (By the way, if you’re worried about AI bioweapon risk, David Bellamy has a great post on why this, too, is overhyped. Briefly, the bottleneck in building a bioweapon is not intelligence, but lab work and manufacturing.) Pausing AI progress will create much more harm than benefit. First, our adversaries will certainly not slow down. Second, engineering requires discovering problems empirically so we can fix them. If we pause AI by a decade, we will also delay finding and implementing safety engineering fixes by about the same duration. Of course, the incentive to stoke fears — for regulatory capture, to garner attention, or to make one’s technology seem more powerful — remains the same as before. Disclaiming responsibility is a new one. Taking a hard technical look at the actual risks however, I see little factual basis for the degree of fear that’s been stoked up. We still have hard research and engineering work ahead to improve AI safety, but the beneficial applications continue to vastly outweigh the risks, and we should keep building. [Original text (with links): ]

The loudest army isn't the most intense Take each token's share of all crypto chatter and divide it by market cap. That's buzz per dollar, and it flips the leaderboard. Social dominance data from Santiment, caps from CMC. XRP owns 0.76% of the entire crypto conversation, roughly 7x Cardano and 10x the rest. Loudest army alive. But its $69B cap waters it down. Buzz per $1B market cap: $LTC 1.99 — $ADA 1.75 — $XLM 1.19 — $XRP 1.10 — $LINK 1.09 Per dollar, XRP ranks fourth. Litecoin and Cardano punch hardest, the ADA army runs ~1.6x XRP's intensity for its size.

i was the loudest $Bonk bull last cycle i was screaming about it from the $20m lows, when no one was talking about it, to $4 BILLION+ ATHs while almost everyone on Crypto Twitter ridiculed me i mean i literally became known as 'Bonk Guy' due to my viral BONK trade where i turned $16k to $20m+ at peak i think $USELESS is going to go far higher than BONK's $4 billion+ ATH imagine the headlines when USELESS coin is in top 50 and trading above $1b then above $2b then above $3b literally NO OTHER MEMECOIN has this advantage none every mainstream media will talk about it and the cult of believers who think it's going to flip doge they'll talk about me being the biggest fomo trader and it being my most bullish bag after being up bajillions — IF GOD WILLS IT they're going to keep using it as the prime of example of exactly WHY CRYPTO IS USELESS and it'll kind of become a sort of mainstream joke: 'BTC? idk, you might just as well buy USELESS coin! have you seen USELESS coin? yeh, it's a real thing and at $2 BILLION market cap. 2 BILLION?!!! IMAGINE!!!' like USELESS is that memecoin that has only two options: DIE or go AGGRESSIVELY MAINSTREAM & TO INSANE VALUATIONS there is literally no in-between and it is clear now that it is not dying so we might as well relax and wait for the insane valuations