7 ms·

A makeup influencer I follow noticed youtube and instagram are automatically adding filters to his face without permission to his videos. If his content was ab

A makeup influencer I follow noticed youtube and instagram are automatically adding filters to his face without permission to his videos. If his content was about lip makeup they make his lips enormous and if it was about eye makeup the filters make his eyes gigantic. They're having AI detecting the type of content and automatically applying filters. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9MwTHCoR_/?igsh=MTZybml2NDBwbmhxMw%3D%3D https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9MwTHCoR_/?igsh=MTZybml2NDB... The screenshots/videos of them doing it are pretty wild, and insane they are editing creators' uploads without consent!

adzm 11mo ago
This is ridiculous
reactordev 11mo ago
I can hear the ballpoint pens now… This is going to be a huge legal fight as the terms of service you agree to on their platform is “they get to do whatever they want” (IANAL). Watch them try to spin this as “user preference” that just opted everyone into.
- api 11mo ago
  That’s the rude awakening creators get on these platforms. If you’re a writer or an artist or a musician, you own your work by default. But if you upload it to these platforms, they own it more or less. It’s there in the terms of service.
  - sodapopcan 11mo ago
    What if someone else uploads your work?
    - benoau 11mo ago
      Section 230 immunity for doing whatever they want, as long as they remove it if you complain.
      - mitthrowaway2 11mo ago
        Do they also remove it from the AI model weights they trained on it while it was uploaded?
        api 11mo ago
        No.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - gessha 11mo ago
    What are they going to do though, go to one of the ten competing video hosting platforms?
    - mhdhn 11mo ago
      nonexistent
    - Bombthecat 11mo ago
      Yeah, we decided there is only YouTube and only YouTube. Also, no one else can bear the shear amount of traffic and cost
echelon 11mo ago
[flagged]
- jazzyjackson 11mo ago
  Totally. Unfortunately it's not lossless and instead of just getting pixelated it's changing the size of body parts lol
- plorg 11mo ago
  If any engineers think that's what they're doing they should be fired. More likely it's product managers who barely know what's going on in their departments except that there's a word "AI" pinging around that's good for their KPIs and keeps them from getting fired.
  - echelon 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - asveikau 11mo ago
      Videos are expensive to store, but generative AI is expensive to run. That will cost them more than storage allegedly saved. To solve this problem of adding compute heavy processing to serving videos, they will need to cache the output of the AI, which uses up the storage you say they are saving.
      - echelon 11mo ago
        https://c3-neural-compression.github.io/ https://c3-neural-compression.github.io/ Google has already matched H.266. And this was over a year ago. They've probably developed some really good models for this and are silently testing how people perceive them.
    - hatmanstack 11mo ago
      If you want insight into why they haven't deleted "old garbage" you might try, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Zuboff. Pretty enlightening.
Aurornis 11mo ago
The video shown as evidence is full of compression artifacts. The influencer is non-technical and assumes it's an AI filter, but the output is obviously not good quality anywhere. To me, this clearly looks like a case of a very high compression ratio with the motion blocks swimming around on screen. They might have some detail enhancement in the loop to try to overcome the blockiness which, in this case, results in the swimming effect. It's strange to see these claims being taken at face value on a technical forum. It should be a dead giveaway that this is a compression issue because the entire video is obviously highly compressed and lacking detail.
- maxbond 11mo ago
  This is an unfair analysis. They discuss compression artifacts. They highlight things like their eyes getting bigger which are not what you usually expect from a compression artifact. If your compression pipeline gives people anime eyes because it's doing "detail enhancement", your compression pipeline is also a filter. If you apply some transformation to a creator's content, and then their viewers perceive that as them disingenuously using a filter, and your response to their complaints is to "well actually" them about whether it is a filter or a compression artifact, you've lost the plot. To be honest, calling someone "non-technical" and then "well actually"ing them about hair splitting details when the outcome is the same is patronizing, and I really wish we wouldn't treat "normies" that way. Regardless of whether they are technical, they are living in a world increasingly intermediated by technology, and we should be listening to their feedback on it. They have to live with the consequences of our design decisions. If we believe them to be non-technical, we should extend a lot of generosity to them in their use of terminology, and address what they mean instead of nitpicking.
  - panxyh 11mo ago
    The difference is wether the effect is intentional or not. "Non-technical" isn't an insult. What you call "well actually"ing is well within limits on a technical forum.
    - maxbond 11mo ago
methuselah_in 11mo ago
There is no option to turn that off? Or they even don't publish those things anywhere??
weird-eye-issue 11mo ago
One of the comments on IG explains this perfectly: "Meta has been doing this; when they auto-translate the audio of a video they are also adding an Al filter to make the mouth of who is speaking match the audio more closely. But doing this can also add a weird filter over all the face." I don't know why you have to get into conspiracy theories about them applying different filters based on the video content, that would be such a weird micro optimization why would they bother with that
- eloisius 11mo ago
  I doubt that’s what’s happening too but it’s not beyond the pale. They could be feeding both the input video and audio/transcript into their transformer and it has learned “when the audio is talking about lips the person is usually puckering their lips for the camera” so it regurgitates that.
- Irishsteve 11mo ago
  Some random team or engineer does it to get a promo.
- machomaster 11mo ago
  Google has done so many incredibly stupid things, like autotranslating titles/information/audio from a language I already know into English, with no way to turn this off. Assuming that they did something technically impressive, but stupid again is not a conspiracy, but a reasonable assumption based on previous behavior.
Bombthecat 11mo ago
That's actually hilarious
heddelt 11mo ago
[flagged]
ThePowerOfFuet 11mo ago
Here's that link without the tracking linking you to everyone who clicks on it: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9MwTHCoR_ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9MwTHCoR_

adzm 11mo ago

This is ridiculous

reactordev 11mo ago

I can hear the ballpoint pens now… This is going to be a huge legal fight as the terms of service you agree to on their platform is “they get to do whatever they want” (IANAL). Watch them try to spin this as “user preference” that just opted everyone into.

api 11mo ago
That’s the rude awakening creators get on these platforms. If you’re a writer or an artist or a musician, you own your work by default. But if you upload it to these platforms, they own it more or less. It’s there in the terms of service.
- sodapopcan 11mo ago
  What if someone else uploads your work?
  - benoau 11mo ago
    Section 230 immunity for doing whatever they want, as long as they remove it if you complain.
    - mitthrowaway2 11mo ago
      Do they also remove it from the AI model weights they trained on it while it was uploaded?
      - api 11mo ago
        No.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- gessha 11mo ago
  What are they going to do though, go to one of the ten competing video hosting platforms?
  - mhdhn 11mo ago
    nonexistent
  - Bombthecat 11mo ago
    Yeah, we decided there is only YouTube and only YouTube. Also, no one else can bear the shear amount of traffic and cost

echelon 11mo ago

[flagged]

jazzyjackson 11mo ago
Totally. Unfortunately it's not lossless and instead of just getting pixelated it's changing the size of body parts lol
plorg 11mo ago
If any engineers think that's what they're doing they should be fired. More likely it's product managers who barely know what's going on in their departments except that there's a word "AI" pinging around that's good for their KPIs and keeps them from getting fired.
- echelon 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - asveikau 11mo ago
    Videos are expensive to store, but generative AI is expensive to run. That will cost them more than storage allegedly saved. To solve this problem of adding compute heavy processing to serving videos, they will need to cache the output of the AI, which uses up the storage you say they are saving.
    - echelon 11mo ago
      https://c3-neural-compression.github.io/ https://c3-neural-compression.github.io/ Google has already matched H.266. And this was over a year ago. They've probably developed some really good models for this and are silently testing how people perceive them.
  - hatmanstack 11mo ago
    If you want insight into why they haven't deleted "old garbage" you might try, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Zuboff. Pretty enlightening.

Aurornis 11mo ago

The video shown as evidence is full of compression artifacts. The influencer is non-technical and assumes it's an AI filter, but the output is obviously not good quality anywhere. To me, this clearly looks like a case of a very high compression ratio with the motion blocks swimming around on screen. They might have some detail enhancement in the loop to try to overcome the blockiness which, in this case, results in the swimming effect. It's strange to see these claims being taken at face value on a technical forum. It should be a dead giveaway that this is a compression issue because the entire video is obviously highly compressed and lacking detail.

maxbond 11mo ago
This is an unfair analysis. They discuss compression artifacts. They highlight things like their eyes getting bigger which are not what you usually expect from a compression artifact. If your compression pipeline gives people anime eyes because it's doing "detail enhancement", your compression pipeline is also a filter. If you apply some transformation to a creator's content, and then their viewers perceive that as them disingenuously using a filter, and your response to their complaints is to "well actually" them about whether it is a filter or a compression artifact, you've lost the plot. To be honest, calling someone "non-technical" and then "well actually"ing them about hair splitting details when the outcome is the same is patronizing, and I really wish we wouldn't treat "normies" that way. Regardless of whether they are technical, they are living in a world increasingly intermediated by technology, and we should be listening to their feedback on it. They have to live with the consequences of our design decisions. If we believe them to be non-technical, we should extend a lot of generosity to them in their use of terminology, and address what they mean instead of nitpicking.
- panxyh 11mo ago
  The difference is wether the effect is intentional or not. "Non-technical" isn't an insult. What you call "well actually"ing is well within limits on a technical forum.
  - maxbond 11mo ago

methuselah_in 11mo ago

There is no option to turn that off? Or they even don't publish those things anywhere??

weird-eye-issue 11mo ago

One of the comments on IG explains this perfectly: "Meta has been doing this; when they auto-translate the audio of a video they are also adding an Al filter to make the mouth of who is speaking match the audio more closely. But doing this can also add a weird filter over all the face." I don't know why you have to get into conspiracy theories about them applying different filters based on the video content, that would be such a weird micro optimization why would they bother with that

eloisius 11mo ago
I doubt that’s what’s happening too but it’s not beyond the pale. They could be feeding both the input video and audio/transcript into their transformer and it has learned “when the audio is talking about lips the person is usually puckering their lips for the camera” so it regurgitates that.
Irishsteve 11mo ago
Some random team or engineer does it to get a promo.
machomaster 11mo ago
Google has done so many incredibly stupid things, like autotranslating titles/information/audio from a language I already know into English, with no way to turn this off. Assuming that they did something technically impressive, but stupid again is not a conspiracy, but a reasonable assumption based on previous behavior.

Bombthecat 11mo ago

That's actually hilarious

heddelt 11mo ago

[flagged]

ThePowerOfFuet 11mo ago

Here's that link without the tracking linking you to everyone who clicks on it: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9MwTHCoR_ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9MwTHCoR_