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

YouTube to automatically label AI-generated videos

blog.youtube

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 881 posts

Re: YouTube to automatically label AI-generated videos

#531

Post by 1718627440 »

patates wrote: post #410
bardackx wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find super HARD to believe that we ran out of musicians doing music in the styles of the 80s/90s maybe your friend just doesn't want to search for new music, and that is ok, it's ok to be lazy, not a crime; but saying nobody is making such music is a sad excuse.

> it's ok to be lazy, not a crime It's normal to hate AI being pushed down our throats, but it's a completely different thing when we call people names, who enjoy it on their own.

You can also treat lazy not as an insult, but a behavioural description. Everyone likes to be lazy for sometime, and if you do not allow yourself lazy once in a while, you are likely to get burnout. In fact, that's precisely what was done here: "it's ok to be lazy".

Re: YouTube to automatically label AI-generated videos

#532

Post by jeltz »

Griffinsauce wrote: post #424
echelon wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that no one is making 80s or 90s style music is absurd. The idea that only humans can make music is absurd. > I guess she can listen to slob but maybe just look around a little instead? The idea that AI generated = slop is absurd. Humans create just as much, if not more slop. Look at 99% of "professional" output in creative fields. It's awful. A human with taste steering AI tools can be better than a "clas…

Run over in what way?

In that the avalance of slop will make it impossible to find quality stuff, human or AI.

Re: YouTube to automatically label AI-generated videos

#533

Post by simonklitj »

sixothree wrote: post #434
fnord77 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

some people seem to be completely unable to detect AI slop

This biggest offender creeping into my feeds currently seems to be long form history videos. I'll be 10 minutes into a 90 minute WWII video and notice a completely incorrect pronunciation of something and realize what is happening. They're certainly getting better at fooling us. Especially when they speak slowly with a calm voice.

I mostly refrain from watching any

Re: YouTube to automatically label AI-generated videos

#534

Post by galkk »

latexr wrote: post #509
galkk wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the almost industrial score music machines: trailer music, like two steps from hell, even Zimmer. Those are also can be considered as slop, even worse - highly formulaic, almost standard (YouTube “heroic music chord progression”). And those were written by humans

I’m not going to devalue your opinions—music is mostly a matter of taste—but you and your parent comment are stretching the term “slop”, like when a software user misuses “bug” to mean “something which doesn’t work like I want, despite it working exactly as designed for fifteen years”. “Slop” is specifically about AI content lacking in effort, quality, meaning. You may not like Zimmer, but saying it lacks in those ar…

The thing is that there is already enough ai content that is not lacking in effort, quality, meaning too.

I clearly see talented author who just didn’t had chops or resources previously to realize his vision, and now he can and I can enjoy it.

At the same time I probably feel and define slop slightly differently, for myself.

In my birth city there was a street that was closed every weekend for art sellings. You walk about 1km (or less), and there are tables with sculpitures, paintings, crafts etc. In the beginning it’s fun, but after some time (and especially after several visits) you see how repetitive and formulaic it is. Somebody chooses kittens and draws 100s of things with them, somebody chooses nature etc etc etc. I didn’t even know the word slop then, but looking back - it was it.

After watching Bob Ross (and I love the guy) it’s clear that many “creators” were producing slop that is technically similar to what Bob Ross was teaching. Did Bob Ross produced slop? No. Do people who just reuse same approach over and over again (here is how we will paint the tree by using this then than brush) produce slop? In my book - yes. And it’s fine, if they or somebody else enjoy it. I don’t judge them and I don’t judge people who use and enjoy ai.

For me art’s purpose is to invoke some emotion in person, experiencing the art. The way how art is produced is secondary.

You can have buckethead who does music, and you can have someone (even highly technical, with great timing, control, mechanical chops) who “produces song” while sitting on a toilet and an “instrumental album” in a day, by running pentatonic scale all over again. And this is the slop for me. And it has nothing to do with ai.

Re: YouTube to automatically label AI-generated videos

#535

Post by watwut »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #485
kibibu wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, but also it's ok to silently judge people. If somebody told me "I choose to only read AI-generated books" I would also silently judge them.

What about the long tail of romance novels, fanfiction, etc though? 50 shades was an outlier in that it was popular but it's absolute drivel, and there is a lot of that kind of low quality writing out there.

Imo, fanfiction crowd is overall much more actively creating then your average pop culture consumers. And their engagement with reading is also a fairly active. They are more likely to write themselves and even if dont, their reading tend to be and entry point for own fantasies. I feel like the only ones who have right to judge them are people who write full on books. And those seem to be aware this crowd is also simultaneously the last crowd of actual readers buying their books here and there.

Romance readers got tired of being judged for decades and decades by people who dont read at all, people who read pure power fantasies or what not.

Re: YouTube to automatically label AI-generated videos

#536

Post by throw23232 »

delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #420
thelucent wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did the same too. I listen exclusively to my own songs made with the help of AI. My styles are orchestra and symphony pop, which I find rare these days. Even if it exists, the lyrics might not be something that I enjoy. So I just write my own lyrics, decides on the melodies, and put it to AI to create a polished version. Do I feel emotional when I listen to it? Of course, its my own lyrics that I wrote. Of course I…

[flagged]

What's so weird about creating your own stuff? If I paint something stupid (like by numbers) and hang it in my room you're going to judge me?

This is not fine art, but it is creative. Lots and lots of creative pursuits are just tweaking shit others have provided as building blocks. I don't see how AI is different in this case.

Re: YouTube to automatically label AI-generated videos

#537

Post by throw23232 »

textadventure wrote: post #425
imp0cat wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it really have to be suprising? Some people already have a life full of surprises (read: stress). Comforting music can help with that.

That's like saying that in order to not be stressed you can only read books that you write yourself. Are we seriously going to act like any of this is normal or healthy?

This is extremely hyperbolic. The guy says he has a specific taste that chills him out. Why are you guys so judgmental?

I love me some Deleuze and Hegel, but my life is full of "interesting" bits already. Sometimes you need something simple. Your example is wrong as well: he did not create his own music, he directed it and yes I would definitely love to read a book about some weird sci-fi ideas I have written in some style I love but myself cannot reproduce.

Re: YouTube to automatically label AI-generated videos

#538

Post by kuerbel »

viccis wrote: post #523
kuerbel wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't play like Lang Lang. Only Lang Lang can play like Lang Lang. Just because some mfing AI can produce something that sounds like Lang Lang does not make it equal: resemblance is not identity. If I see a performance from Lang Lang, I don't just perceive the sound, it is the expression of memory, discipline and attention. Learning an instrument is more than attaining the skill of producing the correct notes in th…

Every talented pianist in a major conservatory can play like Lang Lang and are trying their best not to lmao

Haha, I get it. Just took him as an example because, in my experience, he is a famous pianist people recognise even if they don't listen to that kind of music. Maybe Vladimir Horowitz would be a better example.

Re: YouTube to automatically label AI-generated videos

#539

Post by sph »

galkk wrote: post #443
HDBaseT wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is plenty of artists making music analogous to 80's and 90's classics. Not to mention millions of 80's and 90's songs she's never heard. I constantly find myself discovering new 90s Boombap, Hip Hop beats and tracks from underground artists. Unfortunately a ton of these aren't on Spotify, although they exist on YouTube in near endless capacity. A lot of my favorite songs of all time aren't great just because th…

What is the problem if somebody doesn’t seek the deep meaning or anything and enjoys whatever she enjoys? Plenty of artists plain suck and discovery is a problem that requires time and effort. If somebody makes decision to like what they like (and made, to some extent) that’s their choice.

> What is the problem if somebody doesn’t seek the deep meaning or anything and enjoys whatever she enjoys?

Some people yearn for the slop.

Re: YouTube to automatically label AI-generated videos

#540

Post by patates »

1718627440 wrote: post #531
patates wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's ok to be lazy, not a crime It's normal to hate AI being pushed down our throats, but it's a completely different thing when we call people names, who enjoy it on their own.

You can also treat lazy not as an insult, but a behavioural description. Everyone likes to be lazy for sometime, and if you do not allow yourself lazy once in a while, you are likely to get burnout. In fact, that's precisely what was done here: "it's ok to be lazy".

> if you do not allow yourself lazy once in a while, you are likely to get burnout

I'm not sure how using AI to generate songs will save anyone from the burnout of searching for songs, but what I understood from context is "intellectual laziness" and I see that as an insult. I'm not a native speaker though, so thanks for offering another perspective.

Post reply on HN