4 ms·
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,
by zulban 5mo 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 5mo agoAnd this philosophy will only lead to Kafkaesque nightmare scenarios for 1-2% of the population, so we're still coming out ahead.
- bee_rider 5mo agoAs Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams, he found that one of his YouTube videos had gotten a little less engagement.
- cloogshicer 5mo agoThis 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 5mo agoYou'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 5mo ago(Individual experiences may vary)
- csallen 5mo agoThat'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 agoThis short video is the best response to what you wrote above: https://youtu.be/q_Rqvd1ayUE https://youtu.be/q_Rqvd1ayUE
- tredre3 5mo agoFair enough. The online world is going to shit.
- makeitdouble 5mo agoYou'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 5mo agoThere 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 5mo agoYeah 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
- floxy 5mo ago>(it's all AI cheating now) My daughter's English professor is now requiring people to hand write their essays during class. So at least there is that.
- madibo3156 5mo agoIn theory you're right, in practice you're not.
- csallen 5mo agoI think it's the opposite
- platevoltage 5mo agoYou could say it's trending up, but there is no way you can deny that we are in a regressive period.
- csallen 5mo agoI mean if you focus on the negative and ignore the positive (which is what many people + the media do), you could say it's overall a regressive period. But you could do that (and people have) literally every year for the past 80 years. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, the world has gotten better in that time. Which is how you know these people are wrong, at least most of the time. The challenge with positive news is that you have to go seek it out. It will rarely come to you. And then you have to greet it without cynicism, which many are incapable of.
- zulban 5mo agoIndeed. See also Pinker's book Better Angels.
- elliotec 5mo agoOn average Steven Pinker is at best a fake hyperoptimist-by-aggregate who puts billionaires on pedestals and rewrites history to entrench shitty systems. Sometimes he says smart stuff but he ignores or actively disregards massive problems with a painfully self-serving neutrality.
- dyauspitr 5mo agoPeople 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 5mo agoWouldn'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 5mo 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 5mo agoGenerally things aren't successful unless they work
- wtetzner 5mo agoThe 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 5mo agoLots 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 5mo agoPeople 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 5mo agoThey 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 5mo agoEven 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 5mo agoThis 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 5mo agoThis 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 5mo ago
- VoodooJuJu 5mo ago[dead]
- loveiswork 5mo agoPlease 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 5mo agoThis definitely needs substantiation. I've NEVER seen such usable tools EVER. AI flagging in general has always been very sketchy IME.
- CivBase 5mo 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.