31–40 of 147 posts
Given that YouTube uses the like and subscribe buttons as inputs for its recommendation algorithm, doesn't this feature just aid and abet content creators in gaming YouTube's system?
I’m wondering what an unbiased survey would even look like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simplest recommender would use videos that were commonly watched afterwards by other people.
That would be fun to exploit. Just get a few hundred accounts, have them watch a Mr. Beast video followed by a video you want to boost, and watch the numbers grow
I know this is just a fun little easter egg, but features like this seems a little risky to me. It calls attention to the fact that Youtube isn't just serving me videos neutrally, it knows what is being said in those videos at the exact moment it is said. It highlights how much Google analyses the content of its videos in a way that more neutral features like automatic transcripts don't and in turn how much that can…
> It calls attention to the fact that Youtube isn't just serving me videos neutrally, it knows what is being said in those videos at the exact moment it is said. It highlights how much Google analyses the content of its videos in a way that more neutral features like automatic transcripts don't and in turn how much that can teach Google about me based on the videos I watch. How else do you think the "up next" and "re…
It wouldn't surprise me if they use transcripts, but neither feature strictly requires it.
I think the real risk here is users extrapolating from "YouTube can automatically respond to the content of videos". The Mr Beast thing is still blowing up, could they automatically identify illegal lotteries? Could they identify things that aren't suitable for YouTube Kids but end up there anyways? So on and so forth, YouTube's moderation is basically always under fire.
This seems like a risky mixed message to send. Being able to light up the Subscribe button doesn't imply the technical ability to do better moderation, but I also wouldn't want to be the guy that has to explain that and how it works to the Senate.
I never noticed this, is it just when they say "smash this like button" or just the term "like button"?
What about if I say, "Please don't smash that like button" or "Smash that like button if you're an idiot"? Just wondering if it is based on transcript-grepping or does it even consider sentence semantics? (I know, overkill. Please don't implement that, YT engineers. You've heard of "boiling the ocean to make a cup of tea", right?)
I know this is just a fun little easter egg, but features like this seems a little risky to me. It calls attention to the fact that Youtube isn't just serving me videos neutrally, it knows what is being said in those videos at the exact moment it is said. It highlights how much Google analyses the content of its videos in a way that more neutral features like automatic transcripts don't and in turn how much that can…
I know this is just a fun little easter egg, but features like this seems a little risky to me. It calls attention to the fact that Youtube isn't just serving me videos neutrally, it knows what is being said in those videos at the exact moment it is said. It highlights how much Google analyses the content of its videos in a way that more neutral features like automatic transcripts don't and in turn how much that can…
> It calls attention to the fact that Youtube isn't just serving me videos neutrally, it knows what is being said in those videos at the exact moment it is said. It highlights how much Google analyses the content of its videos in a way that more neutral features like automatic transcripts don't and in turn how much that can teach Google about me based on the videos I watch. How else do you think the "up next" and "re…
I never get any relevant ads or videos for me :(.
I know this is just a fun little easter egg, but features like this seems a little risky to me. It calls attention to the fact that Youtube isn't just serving me videos neutrally, it knows what is being said in those videos at the exact moment it is said. It highlights how much Google analyses the content of its videos in a way that more neutral features like automatic transcripts don't and in turn how much that can…
> It calls attention to the fact that Youtube isn't just serving me videos neutrally, it knows what is being said in those videos at the exact moment it is said. It highlights how much Google analyses the content of its videos in a way that more neutral features like automatic transcripts don't and in turn how much that can teach Google about me based on the videos I watch. How else do you think the "up next" and "re…
It is absolutely possible to serve recommendations in a content agnostic way based on other user behavior. That is how the Youtube's recommendations worked at least initially. It should be obvious that they didn't have this ability to analyze content when Youtube started almost 20 years ago.
And even in a content aware system, there is a difference between matching up keywords and understanding what those words mean. That is why an automatic transcript feels more neutral. That just transcribes what is being said. There is no implication of any analysis on the meaning of what is being said.
>If anything a dumb rule like "highlight the subscribe button if the transcript mentions it" is much more benign then a recommendation engine that can somehow always serve you a relevant video.
I'm not saying this feature is scarier than the recommendation engine. I'm saying Google revealing how much they know about the content of the video makes everything they do, including their recommendation engine, a little scarier.
I have never once hit that bell