4 ms·

Google prefers to automate everything. Having human supervision would affect the bottomline so is out of the question.

by quikoa 8y ago

Asooka 8y ago
Well, 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 ago
  Are the only 2 choices (1) no human in the loop and (2) only humans in the loop?
- earenndil 8y ago
  Why 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 ago
    Exactly, 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 ago
    At 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
  The question is whether you are more worried about false positives or false negatives. If you are only worried about false positives, then the humans only need to review the content flagged by the AI. This has 2 benefits: 1) the "starting number" would be much much lower than 400 hours of content per minute. 2) If a 10 minute video is obviously pirated, you don't need to watch the entire video to decide that.
- IncRnd 8y ago
  There are some strong corrections that need to be made to your math. 1. Only a subset of uploaded videos need to be checked by humans, those that were flagged by the automated system. 2. Only a subset of the runtime of each flagged video needs to be checked. In other words, if a human decides within 12 seconds of a video that it is infringing, there is no reason to check the remaining portion of the video.

Google prefers to automate everything. Having human supervision would affect the bottomline so is out of the question.

by quikoa 8y ago

Google prefers to automate everything. Having human supervision would affect the bottomline so is out of the question.

Well, 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 ago
Are the only 2 choices (1) no human in the loop and (2) only humans in the loop?
earenndil 8y ago
Why 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 ago
  Exactly, 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 ago
  At 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
The question is whether you are more worried about false positives or false negatives. If you are only worried about false positives, then the humans only need to review the content flagged by the AI. This has 2 benefits: 1) the "starting number" would be much much lower than 400 hours of content per minute. 2) If a 10 minute video is obviously pirated, you don't need to watch the entire video to decide that.
IncRnd 8y ago
There are some strong corrections that need to be made to your math. 1. Only a subset of uploaded videos need to be checked by humans, those that were flagged by the automated system. 2. Only a subset of the runtime of each flagged video needs to be checked. In other words, if a human decides within 12 seconds of a video that it is infringing, there is no reason to check the remaining portion of the video.