[deleted]
Leaking YouTube creators' private videos
61–70 of 436 posts
Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos
#62I recently left Google having worked on a number of projects with various YouTube teams. I think I can explain why it's being handled this way by YouTube. This is a fairly nuanced/involved issue, so the task of classifying the bug likely made it's way to one of the engineers responsible for the implementation of this feature. That engineer has already launched this project, and filed it away under their GRAD (perform…
> This is a fairly nuanced/involved issue
Is it though?
Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos
#63Flashbacks to when I uploaded a private video, and on a first date a person googled me and said "Oh is this you, ". Apparently at some point private videos were indexed in google.
You're probably thinking of unlisted, not private.
Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos
#64bit meta but can I just applaud the article? Descriptive title, immediately comes to the point, no elaborate fluff, factual... what a nice change of pace. 95% of other users finding this would have done much worse. This is not clickbait, not calling for a social media campaign, has no embedded tweets of interaction with Google engineers trying to shame them, no singling out of individuals, ... Not sure if a user post…
With JavaScript disabled I had to inspect page source and remove "hidden" attributes from divs for content to show up. There's no placeholder text, no attempt to justify the need for JS at all, no consideration of the possibility that someone might be using a JS whitelisting tool (such as NoScript) on the modern Web despite its clear utility. For a blog post.
Aside from that:
> Descriptive title, immediately comes to the point, no elaborate fluff, factual...
I'll give you "descriptive title". I could write this much more directly and pleasantly.
Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're in for a surprise then, because this article is clearly in an LLM style. That doesn't mean it's hallucinated, no, there is a real human behind, but the actual content that you enjoyed is LLM-written.
Give me that style guide and spread it around then!
I genuinely don't understand why other people like this style. I find it positively dreadful.
Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're in for a surprise then, because this article is clearly in an LLM style. That doesn't mean it's hallucinated, no, there is a real human behind, but the actual content that you enjoyed is LLM-written.
It's no secret LLM's can disseminate news in a superior fashion to 99% of human writers, when instructed properly
"Disseminate news" is not the same as "write tolerable prose", however.
Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos
#67The article suggests a seemingly easy fix:
> The fix is pretty straightforward: treat comment content as untrusted data, not as potential instructions. Comments should be passed to the model with clear role boundaries that prevent them from being interpreted as system-level directives.
> Any AI feature that ingests user-generated content and acts on it needs to enforce this separation. Otherwise, the AI becomes a vector for every piece of content it reads.
So why isn't YT doing the extreme obvious?
Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos
#68Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good != Successful. I assume that's why they wrote good and not successful. It's an average software product with incredible scaling behind it and a lot of elbow grease to keep it chumming along, but it's not great software by the definition of "bugs actually get dealt with"
It's great software in the sense that it makes a shit ton of money though. In the end software that doesn't get used and doesn't make any money but has no bugs is not valuable either. Not saying that this is the trade off you have to make but if you have a working mode in place that achieves usage and money somewhat consistently i can understand being hesitant about changing it to optimize for less bugs instead.
That's just two different scales.
Weapons are a great product for weapon dealers and manufacturers as well, just not so much for the people killed by them (or their families, or survivors)
So sure, if making a shitload of money is the metric, YouTube is a great product.
That wasn't the point of the person you answered to though.
Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos
#70> Attacker leaves the comment on a creator's video. > Creator opens YouTube studio's comment tab. > Creator clicks a suggested AI prompt (Designed by YouTube) > Injection fires, attacker-controlled content appears in the response. It's insane that YouTube doesn't see prompt injection as a bug.
Yeah, if going to site and just clicking a link given to me by the site itself is getting socially engineered, then something is very wrong with that site.
Youtube comments are also links given by the site. I think in this case it's not necessarily the prompt injection that's the issue but the fact that untrusted content allows formatted links. YouTube doesn't allow clicabkle links in comments iirc, so the same needs to be applied here.