5 ms·
> The small number of humans available to review contested claims means that people who fall afoul of machine error, sloppiness and criminal mischief are often
by phantom_oracle 8y ago
> The small number of humans available to review contested claims means that people who fall afoul of machine error, sloppiness and criminal mischief are often unable to get a fair hearing or justice.
This is possibly one of the key points in this report. Google is synonymous with their blackbox/magic "AI".
These systems become remarkably interesting to game (their ad platform has been subject to fraud, but on a different layer). I wonder how many levels of "AI" they think they can automate before they realize that it's probably not possible.
For some good news though, there was a story a little while ago for some educational platform that noped out of YouTube and migrated to self-hosted.
- gdulli 8y agoI'd say that Google is synonymous with hubris. Their unexamined but faulty trust in their ability to create automated systems that don't require manual intervention or customer service is one main application of it.
- duxup 8y agoWe thought it would take some sort of super AI to take over the world just make arbitrary / unfair at face value / decisions that can't be appealed or undone.... naw we just needed companies like Google.
- fucking_tragedy 8y agoBoth AI and bureaucracy are sufficiently opaque enough to be indistinguishable when it comes to ascertaining their decision making processes.
- duxup 8y agoI think for Google at this point we can be sure, there simply isn't a decision making process. Nobody is deciding things, nobody is responding, it's just a black hole where a process leads to and ends.
- sova 8y ago/Dev/null/goog
- checkyoursudo 8y agoSeems like Google is actually worse than most bureaucracies now in terms of getting a review of an individual bad decision. With Google, it's like, here have an email.
- pjc50 8y agoThis was the future that 40 years of cyberpunk was trying to warn us about.
- rhizome 8y agoJust another government function outsourced to the private sector.
- yeahitslikethat 8y agoThis is exactly the computers taking jobs from people. They could hire more people and solve the problem. This is the ai apocalypse happening right before or eyes in slow motion. Pretty soon the ai will make the content and humans won't be allowed to upload at all.
- wongarsu 8y agoThere is no AI to resolve contested copyright claims. It just sits in Google's queue for weeks because Google refuses to hire enough employees to resolve issues in a timely manner. "Computers taking jobs" would arguably be better because then somebody would do the job, instead of the job just not being done at all.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoGoogle has no incentive to do better. There's some hubris involved, but there's also a lot of sociopathic indifference. A class action suit might give it the motivation it needs to start behaving responsibly.
- zozbot123 8y agoContentID is their AI. And of course it doesn't resolve anything - "AI" being opaque and unpredictable by definition - but parent wasn't saying that computers would do a better job than humans, just that they'd be a lot more convenient.
- ikeboy 8y agoThere's no such queue. Where are you getting that from?
- ikeboy 8y agoOP is just wrong here. Copyright strikes don't go through content ID, and anyway nobody at YouTube is responsible or should be (per DMCA law) to decide what's infringement. If there's a dispute it can go to court.
- tehwebguy 8y agoYeah OP is wrong about the AI part but of course YouTube is responsible: they have allowed bad actors to keep gaming their strike system for years.
- ikeboy 8y agoYouTube is personally liable if they reject valid DMCA notices. The only way to keep the safe harbor and guarantee immunity is to follow the DMCA process. You're suggesting they voluntarily give up protections to hurt bad actors.
- vsl 8y agoThey are not required by DMCA to nuke you after 3 strikes, and they are allowed to keep the content if you file a counter-notice. Neither really works with YouTube. This IS on Google.
- ikeboy 8y agoThey're required to block repeat infringers, which is reasonably taken to mean 3. They accept and process counter-notices. Going to disagree with you that they don't work.
- cannonedhamster 8y agoThe article disproves your opinion. They are, with no punishment to bad actors, i.e. there's no 3 strike for absolutely false copyright claims, stealing money from content creators and violating the copyrights of content creators. If anything they should lose their safe harbor for facilitating copyright infringement due to their 3 strikes system that has no way to circumvent the false claims. Even if you file a counter notice, the claims are often upheld unless there's a massive outcry. Bad publicity should not be the only recourse for bad actors.