>The thing is, we have to make sure we're OK with the consequences of going this way. Would people be happy to wait for days, maybe weeks, for their video to be

>The thing is, we have to make sure we're OK with the consequences of going this way. Would people be happy to wait for days, maybe weeks, for their video to be approved for upload to YouTube? Would that work with the current society's attention span? Why should they have to? Youtube makes BILLIONS of dollars, and they can afford to employs 10s of thousands of people to be human moderators, they just don't want to because that would eat into profits. If the video has X views or the publisher has X followers, it should be reviewed within hours by a real human. >Is YouTube as we know it actually feasible without AI-based moderation? Can it be a sustainable business with an army of human moderators and/or a drastically reduced scale as a result? Nobody is saying there should be 0 AI moderation, just that there should be a human that reviews a clip if AI flags it and the end-user clicks a button saying "this shouldn't have been flagged". The entire premise of google is kind of broken and both technical and non-technical people feel that way from what I've heard. The fact it's nearly impossible to get to a real human on anything, and if you do happen to get to a real human, half the time they aren't even empowered to undo whatever decision their AI has made... it's just not a good way to do business. There's a balance to technology and human interaction and Google (again IMO) has gone too far in the technology direction. Heck, humanity as a whole might need to find someplace in the middle if the studies about the current generation of 20-somethings struggling with stunted social interactions due to social media is to be believed.