6 ms·

I have a hard time believing that AI can be used to label AI-generated videos without there being a significant number of false positives/negatives. I think bac

by nickvec 4mo ago

I have a hard time believing that AI can be used to label AI-generated videos without there being a significant number of false positives/negatives. I think back to ZeroGPT and it labeling the Declaration of Independence as AI-generated.

zulban 4mo ago
In theory you're right, in practice you're not. We don't need the metaphysical solution to the problem of detecting AI videos for the rest of time. Certainly, it's fairly easy to make something that mostly works most of the time. Enough to be very, very useful.
- arcanemachiner 4mo ago
  And this philosophy will only lead to Kafkaesque nightmare scenarios for 1-2% of the population, so we're still coming out ahead.
  - bee_rider 4mo ago
    As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams, he found that one of his YouTube videos had gotten a little less engagement.
- cloogshicer 4mo ago
  This attitude of "individual cases don't matter as long as the average case is somewhat covered" is exactly why the world's going to shit. The parent post's worry is warranted, IMO.
  - csallen 4mo ago
    You're wrong from your very premise. The world isn't going to shit. It's better than it's been at pretty much any time in human history, in almost every facet.
    - ultrarunner 4mo ago
      (Individual experiences may vary)
      - csallen 4mo ago
        That's always going to be true no matter what trajectory the world is heading in. The point is that, on average, individual experiences are improving, decade by decade. Humanity is doing a remarkable job.
        cloogshicer 4mo ago
        This short video is the best response to what you wrote above: https://youtu.be/q_Rqvd1ayUE https://youtu.be/q_Rqvd1ayUE
    - tredre3 4mo ago
      Fair enough. The online world is going to shit.
    - makeitdouble 4mo ago
      You're arguing the world is at its peak, they're arguing it's directed in a shit direction. You're not disproving them at this point.
      - csallen 4mo ago
        There have always been bumps on the path upward. It's never been smooth. Doesn't change the fact that we're not going to shit, and that we haven't been going to shit for hundreds of years. Quite the opposite.
    - saltyoldman 4mo ago
      Yeah I get the pretty much, the car was near the mountain top in the 80s and 90s and "pretty much" flew off a cliff more recently. Sure, we're still alive but everyone is going to die in about 5 seconds. Drugs are out of control. Homeless are everywhere. No one has interests in anything. No one is having kids. All jobs are going to be gone soon. Colleges can't teach (it's all AI cheating now). People are Gang Robbing stores. Cartels are killing hundreds daily. Fraud is out of control. We have 2 maybe 3 world wars going on simultaneously now. Prices are skyrocketing. Yeah I get why you say "pretty much". lol PS good luck buying a house
- dyauspitr 4mo ago
  People make a living off this platform though, this could be really bad for someone that lives off of YouTube to have their videos labeled as AI generated. This would still be OK if there was a person at YouTube you could contact to manually review and reverse the decision, but that doesn’t really exist so there’s no one you can really appeal to in a timely manner.
  - floxy 4mo ago
    Wouldn't the human creators be the biggest advocates of labeling, so that their content can be more easily found among the AI dross? And that's not considering the fate of the platform as a whole if it descends into low-effort AI spam swamping out everything else. I guess it will be interesting if it is all bots consuming bot-generated content in a parallel economy.
    - wtetzner 4mo ago
      > Wouldn't the human creators be the biggest advocates of labeling, so that their content can be more easily found among the AI dross? Only if it actually works
      - floxy 4mo ago
        Generally things aren't successful unless they work
        wtetzner 4mo ago
        The entire discussion was centered around whether or not using AI to detect AI content would work, or if it would create false positives that harm human content creators. It could work "well enough" for YouTube to consider it a success while still harming a fairly large number of content creators.
  - josephg 4mo ago
    Lots of people making a living off the platform clearly use LLMs to write their scripts. Its kind of weird hearing a person talk to me about something, and then notice characteristic chatgpt patter in their speech. I'm sure many content creators' videos will be labelled as AI generated. For good reason.
- StableAlkyne 4mo ago
  People feel strongly about AI generated content; this is a case where false positives can destroy credibility and disrupt careers. "Works most of the time" isn't good enough here.
  - denkmoon 4mo ago
    They don’t seem to care about false positives anywhere else on the platform. Being at the mercy of automated Google systems comes with the territory.
  - ultrarunner 4mo ago
    Even worse if it's some attribute considered by the algorithm but not disclosed. "Likely AI" is enough to be damaging without even being tagged "Disclosed as AI"
  - zulban 4mo ago
    This isn't a choice between "perfectly fine how things are now" and "destroying credibility". If it were, you're right - "good enough to be useful" wouldn't be a high enough bar. Things are not perfectly fine how things are now. AI slop is destroying the internet. Tons of grifters are earning tons of money off YouTube by brainwashing millions of people with AI slop, including my mom. YouTube needs to do something and this seems feasible and far better than doing nothing. I also think the false positive rate is going to be far lower than you think - especially if YouTube sets a caution threshold. I'm open to other solutions but if you propose we just keep what we have now, then you are proposing an absolute disaster.
  - floxy 4mo ago
    This isn't even at the level of the spam filter on your email account. Are there some false positives and negatives? Yes. Are there some people sending emails who are negatively affected by falsely ending up in the junk mail folder? Yes. Are we going to turn off spam filtering because of this? No. Why should we accept video spam any more than text spam?
    - numpad0 4mo ago
- VoodooJuJu 4mo ago
  [dead]
- loveiswork 4mo ago
  Please tell me this is a joke, or that you're not building anything important at work. It's a very well known problem that YouTube's algorithmic moderation hurts a lot of honest creators, and their ability to make a living, when there is a false positive or is abused.
- numpad0 4mo ago
  This definitely needs substantiation. I've NEVER seen such usable tools EVER. AI flagging in general has always been very sketchy IME.
- CivBase 4mo ago
  > something that mostly works most of the time Problem is that at YouTube's scale the remaining "some of the time" ends up being a collossal figure. On top of that, YouTube's effective monopoly position magnifies the damage done by false positives.
beloch 4mo ago
There's a reason why they led with simply labeling author self-reported AI videos as AI, and then casually mentioned they'll also try to detect AI videos automatically. They're not confident in it working reliably and want people to have low expectations. This is probably realistic. Using AI to detect AI is not reliable. Detecting AI videos is likely to become an arms race and will require an ongoing commitment of resources. This is better than nothing, but it's not going to provide immunity against AI fakes trending and having impact before they're identified as AI.
- pardon_me 4mo ago
  They make a bunch of money off the videos, same as uploaded copyright material (before eventually taking them down).
xeeeeeeeeeeenu 4mo ago
I don't know how YouTube's detection will work, but if it were based solely on watermarks, there would be many false negatives, but there shouldn't be false positives.
observationist 4mo ago
All they need to do is "randomly" label 99,999 of every 100,000 as AI and they'll be right 99.999% of the time. Cryptographically verifiable provenance and chain of custody is going to be necessary to get to the human only stuff, before long, but the good AI stuff will be better. Just a matter of time, at this point.
- intrasight 4mo ago
  Not sure why you appear to be downvoted. Cryptographic provenance is indeed the only solution to humanities digital woes. But only the government could make that a rule so it's not going to happen - at least not in my lifetime.
- wtetzner 4mo ago
  > All they need to do is "randomly" label 99,999 of every 100,000 as AI and they'll be right 99.999% of the time. Unfortunately that could still be true while labeling all human-crafted content as AI-created.
- Hardinai 4mo ago
  [flagged]
msabalau 4mo ago
I mean, between SynthID and C2PA don't you already have labels and watermarks that covering a lot of major players like Google, Adobe, ElevenLabs, NIVIDEA? No real concern about false negatives there. As for false positive, the most straightforward path seems to be to let stuff slide unless you are really sure. Maybe that slightly rewards players like Kling because they keep the invisible watermarks for their own use, and that of the CCP,but not third parties. NBD. It's not like catching everything is that important. YouTube isn't claiming this is perfect. And I don't know that anyone need this to be perfect. It's not like even the best photorealistic video creation tools don't have plenty of tells anyway. This doesn't seem like ZeroGPT at all. Having a flag or not having flag on a YouTube short is low stakes. Its not like it's being sold as a solution for something high stakes like academic grading.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
brikym 4mo ago
If it simply costs more time and money to generate videos that pass the filter I'm all for it. The time and money cost of creating videos has tended to zero so there is a lot of low quality stuff now. It's not just from AI either. Video creation used to require a fancy camera and a above average internet connection. Now the whole world has that so we're seeing a lot of low quality profit seeking content on any platform where there is money to be made. There was a GitHub repo with 100s of low quality PRs because people thought it would boost their job prospects.
ecshafer 4mo ago
videos and images have non-ai methods for detecting if its ai, its easier than text. There are some image artifacts in AI that can be found statistically.
jasonli0226 4mo ago
[dead]
CountHackulus 4mo ago
Considering YouTube's current level of detection of absolutely anything, this will likely be an absolute disaster with no way of appealing to a real human.

by nickvec 4mo ago

zulban 4mo ago

In theory you're right, in practice you're not. We don't need the metaphysical solution to the problem of detecting AI videos for the rest of time. Certainly, it's fairly easy to make something that mostly works most of the time. Enough to be very, very useful.

arcanemachiner 4mo ago
And this philosophy will only lead to Kafkaesque nightmare scenarios for 1-2% of the population, so we're still coming out ahead.
- bee_rider 4mo ago
  As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams, he found that one of his YouTube videos had gotten a little less engagement.
cloogshicer 4mo ago
This attitude of "individual cases don't matter as long as the average case is somewhat covered" is exactly why the world's going to shit. The parent post's worry is warranted, IMO.
- csallen 4mo ago
  You're wrong from your very premise. The world isn't going to shit. It's better than it's been at pretty much any time in human history, in almost every facet.
  - ultrarunner 4mo ago
    (Individual experiences may vary)
    - csallen 4mo ago
      That's always going to be true no matter what trajectory the world is heading in. The point is that, on average, individual experiences are improving, decade by decade. Humanity is doing a remarkable job.
      - cloogshicer 4mo ago
        This short video is the best response to what you wrote above: https://youtu.be/q_Rqvd1ayUE https://youtu.be/q_Rqvd1ayUE
  - tredre3 4mo ago
    Fair enough. The online world is going to shit.
  - makeitdouble 4mo ago
    You're arguing the world is at its peak, they're arguing it's directed in a shit direction. You're not disproving them at this point.
    - csallen 4mo ago
      There have always been bumps on the path upward. It's never been smooth. Doesn't change the fact that we're not going to shit, and that we haven't been going to shit for hundreds of years. Quite the opposite.
  - saltyoldman 4mo ago
    Yeah I get the pretty much, the car was near the mountain top in the 80s and 90s and "pretty much" flew off a cliff more recently. Sure, we're still alive but everyone is going to die in about 5 seconds. Drugs are out of control. Homeless are everywhere. No one has interests in anything. No one is having kids. All jobs are going to be gone soon. Colleges can't teach (it's all AI cheating now). People are Gang Robbing stores. Cartels are killing hundreds daily. Fraud is out of control. We have 2 maybe 3 world wars going on simultaneously now. Prices are skyrocketing. Yeah I get why you say "pretty much". lol PS good luck buying a house
dyauspitr 4mo ago
People make a living off this platform though, this could be really bad for someone that lives off of YouTube to have their videos labeled as AI generated. This would still be OK if there was a person at YouTube you could contact to manually review and reverse the decision, but that doesn’t really exist so there’s no one you can really appeal to in a timely manner.
- floxy 4mo ago
  Wouldn't the human creators be the biggest advocates of labeling, so that their content can be more easily found among the AI dross? And that's not considering the fate of the platform as a whole if it descends into low-effort AI spam swamping out everything else. I guess it will be interesting if it is all bots consuming bot-generated content in a parallel economy.
  - wtetzner 4mo ago
    > Wouldn't the human creators be the biggest advocates of labeling, so that their content can be more easily found among the AI dross? Only if it actually works
    - floxy 4mo ago
      Generally things aren't successful unless they work
      - wtetzner 4mo ago
        The entire discussion was centered around whether or not using AI to detect AI content would work, or if it would create false positives that harm human content creators. It could work "well enough" for YouTube to consider it a success while still harming a fairly large number of content creators.
- josephg 4mo ago
  Lots of people making a living off the platform clearly use LLMs to write their scripts. Its kind of weird hearing a person talk to me about something, and then notice characteristic chatgpt patter in their speech. I'm sure many content creators' videos will be labelled as AI generated. For good reason.
StableAlkyne 4mo ago
People feel strongly about AI generated content; this is a case where false positives can destroy credibility and disrupt careers. "Works most of the time" isn't good enough here.
- denkmoon 4mo ago
  They don’t seem to care about false positives anywhere else on the platform. Being at the mercy of automated Google systems comes with the territory.
- ultrarunner 4mo ago
  Even worse if it's some attribute considered by the algorithm but not disclosed. "Likely AI" is enough to be damaging without even being tagged "Disclosed as AI"
- zulban 4mo ago
  This isn't a choice between "perfectly fine how things are now" and "destroying credibility". If it were, you're right - "good enough to be useful" wouldn't be a high enough bar. Things are not perfectly fine how things are now. AI slop is destroying the internet. Tons of grifters are earning tons of money off YouTube by brainwashing millions of people with AI slop, including my mom. YouTube needs to do something and this seems feasible and far better than doing nothing. I also think the false positive rate is going to be far lower than you think - especially if YouTube sets a caution threshold. I'm open to other solutions but if you propose we just keep what we have now, then you are proposing an absolute disaster.
- floxy 4mo ago
  This isn't even at the level of the spam filter on your email account. Are there some false positives and negatives? Yes. Are there some people sending emails who are negatively affected by falsely ending up in the junk mail folder? Yes. Are we going to turn off spam filtering because of this? No. Why should we accept video spam any more than text spam?
  - numpad0 4mo ago
VoodooJuJu 4mo ago
[dead]
loveiswork 4mo ago
Please tell me this is a joke, or that you're not building anything important at work. It's a very well known problem that YouTube's algorithmic moderation hurts a lot of honest creators, and their ability to make a living, when there is a false positive or is abused.
numpad0 4mo ago
This definitely needs substantiation. I've NEVER seen such usable tools EVER. AI flagging in general has always been very sketchy IME.
CivBase 4mo ago
> something that mostly works most of the time Problem is that at YouTube's scale the remaining "some of the time" ends up being a collossal figure. On top of that, YouTube's effective monopoly position magnifies the damage done by false positives.

beloch 4mo ago

There's a reason why they led with simply labeling author self-reported AI videos as AI, and then casually mentioned they'll also try to detect AI videos automatically. They're not confident in it working reliably and want people to have low expectations. This is probably realistic. Using AI to detect AI is not reliable. Detecting AI videos is likely to become an arms race and will require an ongoing commitment of resources. This is better than nothing, but it's not going to provide immunity against AI fakes trending and having impact before they're identified as AI.

pardon_me 4mo ago
They make a bunch of money off the videos, same as uploaded copyright material (before eventually taking them down).

xeeeeeeeeeeenu 4mo ago

I don't know how YouTube's detection will work, but if it were based solely on watermarks, there would be many false negatives, but there shouldn't be false positives.

observationist 4mo ago

All they need to do is "randomly" label 99,999 of every 100,000 as AI and they'll be right 99.999% of the time. Cryptographically verifiable provenance and chain of custody is going to be necessary to get to the human only stuff, before long, but the good AI stuff will be better. Just a matter of time, at this point.

intrasight 4mo ago
Not sure why you appear to be downvoted. Cryptographic provenance is indeed the only solution to humanities digital woes. But only the government could make that a rule so it's not going to happen - at least not in my lifetime.
wtetzner 4mo ago
> All they need to do is "randomly" label 99,999 of every 100,000 as AI and they'll be right 99.999% of the time. Unfortunately that could still be true while labeling all human-crafted content as AI-created.
Hardinai 4mo ago
[flagged]

msabalau 4mo ago

I mean, between SynthID and C2PA don't you already have labels and watermarks that covering a lot of major players like Google, Adobe, ElevenLabs, NIVIDEA? No real concern about false negatives there. As for false positive, the most straightforward path seems to be to let stuff slide unless you are really sure. Maybe that slightly rewards players like Kling because they keep the invisible watermarks for their own use, and that of the CCP,but not third parties. NBD. It's not like catching everything is that important. YouTube isn't claiming this is perfect. And I don't know that anyone need this to be perfect. It's not like even the best photorealistic video creation tools don't have plenty of tells anyway. This doesn't seem like ZeroGPT at all. Having a flag or not having flag on a YouTube short is low stakes. Its not like it's being sold as a solution for something high stakes like academic grading.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

brikym 4mo ago

If it simply costs more time and money to generate videos that pass the filter I'm all for it. The time and money cost of creating videos has tended to zero so there is a lot of low quality stuff now. It's not just from AI either. Video creation used to require a fancy camera and a above average internet connection. Now the whole world has that so we're seeing a lot of low quality profit seeking content on any platform where there is money to be made. There was a GitHub repo with 100s of low quality PRs because people thought it would boost their job prospects.

ecshafer 4mo ago

videos and images have non-ai methods for detecting if its ai, its easier than text. There are some image artifacts in AI that can be found statistically.

jasonli0226 4mo ago

[dead]

CountHackulus 4mo ago

Considering YouTube's current level of detection of absolutely anything, this will likely be an absolute disaster with no way of appealing to a real human.