9 ms·
I've seen nature videos where there's no sound but the birds chirping, and YouTube is still able to hear someone playing All-Star on Mars and flag the video. I
by reificator 8y ago
I've seen nature videos where there's no sound but the birds chirping, and YouTube is still able to hear someone playing All-Star on Mars and flag the video. It's really incredible tech.
EDIT: The article actually mentions some similar examples: http://c4sif.org/2012/02/youtube-identifies-birdsong-as-copyrighted-music/ http://c4sif.org/2012/02/youtube-identifies-birdsong-as-copy...
- jedberg 8y agoI know the guy who created ContentID. He's a good guy and only had good intentions, namely to keep YouTube in business by identifying legit copyright issues. At the time, a human had to review all the claims. This is a good example of how AI can go bad.
- reificator 8y agoI'm not demonizing the people making it, or even necessarily the people demanding it be made. The DMCA was the beginning of the end of a free and open internet, and now it's accelerating. I just hope the next generation understands what they're missing under the spectre of copyright law.
- simion314 8y agoHumans are to blame for using horrible AI/software. At least if you know your AI is that broken then have some human supervision.
- quikoa 8y agoGoogle prefers to automate everything. Having human supervision would affect the bottomline so is out of the question.
- Asooka 8y agoWell, let's say it takes 30 minutes to fully check for copyright compliance 10 minutes of video. This means that the speed of one person checking videos is 1/3 unchecked-minutes per minute, or 1/3upm. 400 hours of content are uploaded every minute to youtube, which makes for 24000upm. You will need to employ 96000 people 24/7 to check all videos. Of course, they can't work 24/7, so a more realistic figure is 150000 people. This isn't menial work, it requires legal knowledge and familiarity with copyright law, so you're looking at hiring entry-level law clerks, which is about 16$/hr or about 33k$/yr. It will cost Google about 5bln$/yr to check all uploaded content manually. Which seems like a lot but is like 10-20% of Alphabet Inc.'s gross profit, so not actually impossible.
- greglindahl 8y agoAre the only 2 choices (1) no human in the loop and (2) only humans in the loop?
- earenndil 8y agoWhy not simply have humans review the videos that are automatically flagged? That would be a significant improvement over the current state of affairs, and would command a significantly more reasonable price.
- simion314 8y agoExactly, have the code extract the exact section of video that it considers problematic on left side and on the right side put the copyrighted work, the human will lose a few seconds to have a look. Also I do not understand why Google does not use a reputation system, if a channel has a good reputation then take this in consideration in the automatic detection.
- Dylan16807 8y agoAt the very least do it for major accounts (4k hours a year). It's pretty ridiculous that pulling in hundreds of dollars won't get you even a 30 second review.
- tomhallett 8y ago
- mygo 8y agotoday in order to do a Google search I had to prove to Google that I wasn’t a robot. And even though I did it right the second time, they still made me do it a third time. I just remember sitting there going, Google, I actually am a human and your AI sucks so if I have to tap on storefronts and cars one more time to do a freaking Google search then I’m just using Bing.
- jstanley 8y agoIt's partly checking that you're a human. It's partly using you for free labour to train their next generation of SkyNet. We've reached a point with CAPTCHAs (originally conceived as a way for humans to exert their will over machines) where the machines are now setting tasks for the humans, and the humans are carrying out the tasks without putting up too much of a fight.
- eftychis 8y agoThat. CAPTCHAs are used as free labour. The only reason you don't see them everywhere is because people would stop using Google.
- reificator 8y agoWe've done it. We've cracked the code. This thread is complaining about the fully automated process used by Google to check for copyright violations, and how infeasible it is to hire someone to check each video. You're talking about how CAPTCHAs are now being used to get free labour. > Prove you're human: Does the following video contain Beat It by Michael Jackson?
- eftychis 8y agoI am pretty sure they have considered it. Probably there is a legal hiccup laying here -- you either have reasonable suspicion that the material you show is copyrighted, or you acknowledge your algorithms and AI suck and you require crowd-sourcing. Kind of a lose-lose legally, and they would possibly introduce liability. Recall the goal of Google is to avoid liability via the statement "we are pretty good and have really low false negatives", and have as few false positives as not to make the platform unusable. Google does not care about content creators or propagation of knowledge (instructive videos) and ideas. Simple statement here. Google engineers might (at least the friends I have), but not as a whole organization. But yeah crowd-sourcing is a good way to do a second sifting through results. I know it is being used, by Google and others, already to classify video sources.
- narrator 8y agoThe real problem is when the task is no longer doable by Humans. Then the AIs have taken over and we can't turn them off. Imagine what happens when the AIs run our cars and food production, security, etc. We will be unable to turn them off and they will be unaccountable except to the people who set their policy which will be mired no doubt in layers of deep obscurity.
- simion314 8y agoOr the problem where the developers will not know why the AI did something, say an AI decides to do some bad thing, the judge will ask the developer why and the dev will say: -I don't know, we feed them a ton of input and it worked fine on my machine and without test data so we shipped it
- dangrossman 8y agoPrior to the DMCA, ISPs had full liability for copyright infringement committed by their customers online. Small ISPs were being sued out of existence, and it was only a matter of time before nobody would be willing to run an ISP at all. The DMCA (specifically Section 512) was the thing that saved the free and open internet by introducing limited liability for ISPs.
- reificator 8y agoThat's fair and I don't want to downplay that aspect. But that's not the only thing the DMCA does.
- jimbo999 8y agofor balance https://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/ https://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/
- jimbo999 8y agowell yes and no https://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/ https://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/
- amyjess 8y agoWhile the DMCA has been abused by large corporations, it has been invaluable in helping protect the little guy. It's been a huge boon to independent content creators that you can just send somebody a DMCA takedown notice and they'll comply. Before the DMCA, you had to pay out the nose for a lawyer, and you'd be in for a long and very, very expensive legal process. Your average photographer can't afford that, so copyright enforcement was solely a privilege of the rich prior to the DMCA. Here's an example. I know someone who shared pictures of herself in a private women-only group. Someone who ran a really disgusting cyberbullying page on Facebook had a mole in the group and posted the pictures publicly while making fun of her appearance and calling her slurs. Since the photographer was a friend of hers, the photographer simply sent Facebook a bunch of DMCA notices telling the cyberbullying page to take down the pictures. Facebook complied in under an hour. The cyberbullying page tried to post the pictures again; more DMCA notices were sent, and the whole page was unpublished.
- Jyaif 8y agoContentID is not AI by any definition of AI, it's signal processing.
- thomastjeffery 8y agoIt's automated decision-making.
- kazinator 8y agoAny algorithm that produces a Boolean result is "automated decision making". You pop in the inputs, let the automaton run, and there is your yes or no.
- gowld 8y agoYes, that's right. The boundaries of AI are qualitative, not quantitative. AI can be simplistic or complex, dumb or smart.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jexah 8y agoAI doesn't have to learn to be classed as AI. Source: Every video game ever made. Just look at deep blue. Most would consider that AI, but AFAIK there is zero machine learning involved. Edit: I think I hit the wrong reply button, meant to reply to parent, haha.
- LordDragonfang 8y agoI believe the implication is that youtube has replaced the human reviewers with an ML-based system.
- kazinator 8y agoContentID isn't learning because it doesn't train to make inferences; it looks for exact signature matches on the audio, normalizing for alterations like pitch changes and equalization. All sorts of computer applications that are not considered AI have replaced humans. For instance, databases replace clerks having to shuffle papers to and from filing cabinets.
- glogla 8y agoI guess he won't go down in history like the leaded gasoline and freon guy. But I guess it's more like Nazi Germany where if it wasn't him, someone else would have.
- kchr 8y agoDr. Godwin, I presume? tips hat
- tzs 8y agoLooking at the DMCA requirements, it doesn't appear like it would require a lot of human intervention. 1. Copyright owner provides written notification of the alleged infringement. The notification has to provide reasonably sufficient information to allow Google to locate the alleged infringing material; provide contact information for the claimant; include a statement that the claimant has a good faith believe that the use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and a statement that the information the claim is accurate, and that the claimant is authorized to act for the owner. 2. Google then has to remove or disable the material, and take reasonable steps to notify the uploader of the issue. If the uploader does not make a counter notification, it looks like that's the end of Google's obligations. If the uploader files a counter notification, Google has to notify the claimant. If the claimant does not file a lawsuit against the uploader within 14 days, Google has to restore the material. Note that nothing in here seems to require Google to actually look at the material and decide if they think it is infringing. Nor does it require them to proactively seek to find infringing material and notify content providers or block such material. They just have to check that the claimant (and the uploader if they get a counter notice) have included the things in their notice that the law requires. They should be able to automate that for most claims. The ContentID system seems to be going far beyond what DMCA requires them to do to keep their safe harbor. I wonder why they are doing that? Maybe because they want to also be content sellers, and so want to keep the content providers happy with them?
- mjevans 8y agoThe problem is a lack of liability for the content creators. Confusion can happen (such as particular renditions of a work who's basis is public domain information (IE a classical music score)), but willful lies should be punished with actual consequences. Right now things are stacked entirely against one class of content creators (video creators). Additionally if I'm a public institution or someone else that's against having ads I can't control what happens during the contest period* (or so I've heard, it's never happened to me). As someone that has posted a few 'how to do X' in software videos before, who believes that ads should be far more limited (like the old soap operas / PBS sponsors at the end of programs), I'd rather my videos were in 'hold on publishing limbo' while not under my control.
- avian 8y agoI got a copyright strike once for a video with no apparent reason. After closer inspection, I could in fact hear a radio playing somewhere in the background if I really turned up the volume. I found it incredible that YouTube’s algorithm was able to pick it up at that signal-to-noise ratio.
- local_yokel 8y agoFor people with a signal processing background, this is actually a very trivial thing. The basic technique has been in use for probably a hundred years - radar being a classical example - nothing at all to do with Google. Basically, you can get a signal-to-noise ratio improvement proportional to the duration of the signal you're attempting to detect (in this case, audio), thus allowing you to detect very weak signals in the presence of strong noise or other unwanted signals. Look up "pulse compression" or "correlation detection" if you're interested.
- gnulinux 8y agoThis is very true. In UC Berkeley, the very first linear algebra course all EE/CS freshman take (EE 16A) has a lab that does EXACTLY this. You match part of a song with some very noisy sound. If freshmen are taught to do this, it's easily something Google can do.
- sverhagen 8y agoIf it's background noise, is it still a violation? Not suggestion an answer, just asking. Like, how (not in all countries) it's okay to get passers-by in your video shot and broadcast them uncensored?
- teaspoons 8y agoif it can identify the song why can't it process it out of the soundtrack ?
- dingo_bat 8y agoThey don't care. Individual videos don't matter to them.