Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#21

Post by kikokikokiko »

teeray wrote: post #14
Analemma_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "True Crime" as a genre is littered with unscrupulous hosts. But not all of it is in the gutter. In fact, some of it produces a public good. True crime has a similar problem to, say, commerical fishing. Some of the early stuff was quite good, because the first shows to do it had their pick of complex and narratively satisfying events to be based on. But once the low-hanging fruit was plucked, subsequent shows had n…

> The demand for true crime has considerably outpaced the supply Soon it will go meta: a serial killer hosts a true crime show to create interesting episodes, and then other true crime shows have an episode on that!

Something like 5 years ago, a "TV show" in Brazil did just that. It was one of those shows that showed the daily police operations, think COPS but "brazilian style", things go hardcore real easy down here. Anyway, it turned out that when the TV producers weren't getting enough of their daily dose of ultra violence to show to the audience, they would go out to the local drug dealers and ask for an eventual brutal murder, or series of murders, to entice the interest of the audience. It seems to have been going on for years before an insider tipped the police about it. Evil has no limits.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#22

Post by rnk »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #11
maerF0x0 wrote: post #4

While obviously it can veer off into the morbid and obscene, anyone remember "dramatic reenactment" labels on true crime TV in the 90s? (maybe before too) But I do think there's a space for communicating with impactful re-enactment and tasteful "redaction" (censor blurs, keeping things off scene, or jumping forward allowing implication to tell the story). As with all laws, and rules, the enforcement story will tell w…

I think it's something about recreating a likeness of a victim. A paid actor may look similar to a victim, but not exactly. Their image will evoke a totally different emotion from the victim's friends and family.

What if they are careful to make a fake kid who looks nothing like the original (other than kind of looking like a kid of that age and kind of looking like the same race)? There are dramatic re-enactments. I don't want to see this, but should it be banned? Is it okay if it was done with live actors? What about if they were on "to catch a thief"? What if it was a real drama or a play. What if you wanted to block a shakespeare play that had kids killed in it that was a historical event? Is it only for ai actors?

This is a hard thing to figure out. I'm against true crime repros that are disgusting and pandering, but that's completely personal and ambiguous.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#23

Post by gspencley »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #18
danbruc wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The generated girl was white, the actual victim black. Also - after skimming another article - it seems that the child was killed with a knife first and only then was the body put into the oven, maybe in the hope to get rid of the body. This is more like loosely based on a true story then an accurate retelling of events. Also age and name are slightly altered.

Does that matter? What did you think YouTube has in mind when they say "realistically simulate"? Sometimes you can see a trend coming early on, and isn't YouTube responding to what people will probably do in the future?

> I think it's something about recreating a likeness of a victim.

I'm pretty sure that's what the person you are replying to was commenting on.

If you're just continuing the discussion and talking about whether or not the policy is a good move on YouTube's part, fair enough. But it kind of reads like you're shifting the goal post.

My opinion is that I'm honestly not sure if it "matters" or not. YouTube has every right to make their content policies according to whatever drives them, be it business forces or their own values. As an adult consumer of YouTube I would personally prefer if there were a "as long as it is legal" policy, but I get why YouTube may have reasons to adopt different policies and it's not up to me. I recognize their right to do what they think is best with their business and product.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#24

Post by javari »

teeray wrote: post #14
Analemma_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "True Crime" as a genre is littered with unscrupulous hosts. But not all of it is in the gutter. In fact, some of it produces a public good. True crime has a similar problem to, say, commerical fishing. Some of the early stuff was quite good, because the first shows to do it had their pick of complex and narratively satisfying events to be based on. But once the low-hanging fruit was plucked, subsequent shows had n…

> The demand for true crime has considerably outpaced the supply Soon it will go meta: a serial killer hosts a true crime show to create interesting episodes, and then other true crime shows have an episode on that!

That idea is basically the plot of the show "Based on A True Story".

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#25

Post by throwaway4aday »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #4

While obviously it can veer off into the morbid and obscene, anyone remember "dramatic reenactment" labels on true crime TV in the 90s? (maybe before too) But I do think there's a space for communicating with impactful re-enactment and tasteful "redaction" (censor blurs, keeping things off scene, or jumping forward allowing implication to tell the story). As with all laws, and rules, the enforcement story will tell w…

That should be done without appropriating the voice and image of the deceased without permission.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#27

Post by bitshiftfaced »

gspencley wrote: post #23
bitshiftfaced wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that matter? What did you think YouTube has in mind when they say "realistically simulate"? Sometimes you can see a trend coming early on, and isn't YouTube responding to what people will probably do in the future?

> I think it's something about recreating a likeness of a victim. I'm pretty sure that's what the person you are replying to was commenting on. If you're just continuing the discussion and talking about whether or not the policy is a good move on YouTube's part, fair enough. But it kind of reads like you're shifting the goal post. My opinion is that I'm honestly not sure if it "matters" or not. YouTube has every righ…

The discussion, as I understood it, was about contrasting dramatic reenactments using actors with using digital recreations (i.e. "what makes these two techniques different?"). danbruc was talking about how the digital recreation in the news recently was inaccurate. I was questioning if that mattered, since I wasn't so much contrasting paid actors with that specific case but instead with what new technology now allows and what YouTube is probably trying to prevent with their policy.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#28

Post by datavirtue »

Analemma_ wrote: post #8
LiquidPolymer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"True Crime" as a genre is littered with unscrupulous hosts. But not all of it is in the gutter. In fact, some of it produces a public good. I admit I am attracted to these stories and try to choose carefully. If I may - two recommendations: "My Only Story" - an adult man notices with horror that the man who secretly raped him as a school boy in South Africa is still working as a teacher. He quits his job and starts…

> "True Crime" as a genre is littered with unscrupulous hosts. But not all of it is in the gutter. In fact, some of it produces a public good. True crime has a similar problem to, say, commerical fishing. Some of the early stuff was quite good, because the first shows to do it had their pick of complex and narratively satisfying events to be based on. But once the low-hanging fruit was plucked, subsequent shows had n…

There is a huge series covering abducted/missing women. I forget the name right now. They barely scratched the surface. There is no way you could cover them all as the number keeps growing so fast.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#29

Post by canucker2016 »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #4

While obviously it can veer off into the morbid and obscene, anyone remember "dramatic reenactment" labels on true crime TV in the 90s? (maybe before too) But I do think there's a space for communicating with impactful re-enactment and tasteful "redaction" (censor blurs, keeping things off scene, or jumping forward allowing implication to tell the story). As with all laws, and rules, the enforcement story will tell w…

Forensic Files, on the Headline News Network - though they seem to have given up on the 'News' part of their programming recently, shows crime reenactments with narration and comments from people related to the episode's incident in question.

Re: YouTube Bans True Crime Videos That Reanimate Dead Children with AI

#30

Post by nomel »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #7

Black Mirror covered re-animation of loved ones via AI & robotics: Be Right Back Black Mirror: Season 2, Episode 1

There are already services for this [1].

This is also how https://replika.ai started [2].

1. https://news.yahoo.com/ai-takes-on-grief-and-loss-with-new-c...

2. https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-nature-of-things/after-...

Post reply on HN