61–70 of 305 posts
It comes with the territory if we want Google to be able to censor hate speech and misinformation.
You can always use a competing site, or build your own.
Maybe it's time for a public company-independent complains-platform where all companies are obliged by law to respond. Each complaint of course is hidden behind some anti-bot captcha/protection so that the companies themselve can't use AI to answer your complaints.
That's basically what the author suggests when they say: > Anyhow, I truly believe humanity has to rollback to operating at a human scale. It's impossible to operate a complaints-platform on a global scale if it's run by humans. According to GMI [0], 500 hours of content are uploaded every minute. Given an average video duration of about 12 minutes [1], that would be 2500 videos per hour. That's just too much to manu…
Google is a private company. It's fully within their rights to remove any video they don't like, for whatever reason. It comes with the territory if we want Google to be able to censor hate speech and misinformation. You can always use a competing site, or build your own.
KRACK Attacks: Breaking WPA2 https://www.krackattacks.com/
KRACK - Key Reinstallation Attacks: Forcing Nonce Reuse in WPA2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOgJswt7nAc
Time to install GPT-3 on your own server and unleash it onto Google-Support, YouTube-Support, Alpha-Support, etc. to complain about your situation ;-) You just need to answer the captchas to keep it goin.
>Anyhow, I truly believe humanity has to rollback to operating at a human scale. >Using algorithms to flag content is totally fine… problem is when humans cannot interact with humans anymore and AI gets to chose what is right and wrong. Can't agree more.
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? 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 sc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who pays for the moderators? You still need a lot of manpower if you don't want algorithms, regardless of whether you have one Youtube or a thousand SpecialInterestTube.
Google had a revenue of $180B in 2020, and their EBITDA was $55B. I'm no accountant but that sounds like an absolutely insane profit margin. 8-12% would seem much more palatable, so that means they have over 25B of excess profits they could spend on 500.000 middle class incomes for content moderators. YouTube represents 10% of Google's income BTW, so the other 90% of middle class incomes could do moderation for their…
Time to install GPT-3 on your own server and unleash it onto Google-Support, YouTube-Support, Alpha-Support, etc. to complain about your situation ;-) You just need to answer the captchas to keep it goin.
>Anyhow, I truly believe humanity has to rollback to operating at a human scale. >Using algorithms to flag content is totally fine… problem is when humans cannot interact with humans anymore and AI gets to chose what is right and wrong. Can't agree more.