upvote

points

by nickvec1 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby zulban1 hours ago|
next
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby StableAlkyne1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby floxy10 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
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?
reply
upvoteby numpad01 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
[delayed]
reply
upvoteby denkmoon59 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby ultrarunner26 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
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"
reply
upvoteby zulban12 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby cloogshicer1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby csallen33 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby ultrarunner25 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
(Individual experiences may vary)
reply
upvoteby tredre33 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Fair enough. The online world is going to shit.
reply
upvoteby arcanemachiner1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
And this philosophy will only lead to Kafkaesque nightmare scenarios for 1-2% of the population, so we're still coming out ahead.
reply
upvoteby bee_rider1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams, he found that one of his YouTube videos had gotten a little less engagement.
reply
upvoteby numpad050 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
This definitely needs substantiation. I've NEVER seen such usable tools EVER. AI flagging in general has always been very sketchy IME.
reply
upvoteby dyauspitr1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby josephg1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby floxy1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby nkhs8954 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
[dead]
reply
upvoteby loveiswork54 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby xeeeeeeeeeeenu51 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby beloch1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby msabalau12 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby observationist47 minutes ago|
prev|
[-]
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.

reply