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

Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

javoriuski.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 436 posts

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#281

Post by macinjosh »

NamTaf wrote: post #149
Mg6yDfjp5U wrote: post #10

I 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…

[flagged]

> This is a prime example of why programmers are not seriously considered engineers.

The civil engineer who builds a great suspension bridge probably looks down on the one who builds a bridge over a irrigation ditch in a rural county using a big metal pipe covered with dirt.

Much like you may look down on train builders who make the novelty trains for kids parks.

Software engineering happens to be useful everywhere and most stuff in life is low stakes and the economics do not exist to make it perfect.

However, in aerospace, banking, and other high stakes industries software engineering projects are met with the rigor that is called for.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#282

Post by cucumber3732842 »

NamTaf wrote: post #149
Mg6yDfjp5U wrote: post #10

I 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…

[flagged]

Programming is is serious engineering because we take ourselves seriously.

Programming is not serious engineering because real engineers don't half ass everything. No wait, programming is serious engineering because the way they do things is shit too.

Source: Aerospace employmennt

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#283

Post by jskeicjwkxjwkd »

Mg6yDfjp5U wrote: post #72
varispeed wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a fairly nuanced/involved issue Is it though?

Definitely. The front line support agents handle only the most basic requests. Anything even remotely complicated, such as this, would be internally kicked around until they found someone familiar with the project to give input. Which most likely is someone who worked on the original implementation.

It isn’t though. Just fix the goddamned thing. Fuck promo packages—fix your shit.

What’s the point of saying you “work at Google” if all you ever do is work on half-baked, unfinished, unpolished slop?

Fix your shit.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#284

Post by jskeicjwkxjwkd »

b-kf wrote: post #9

bit 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…

Yeah, yay LLM slop!!

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#285

Post by cucumber3732842 »

hiyfsch wrote: post #201
sixtyj wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prejudice seems to be everywhere. Unfortunately, to my knowledge. Eg. architects vs construction engineers vs land surveyors vs construction designers vs urban planners… anyone of them thinks that their profession is more valuable than the others…

[dead]

>The real differentiator though is that the engineers of tangible things can get sued and go to jail if someone dies,

That basically never happens because the license wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on if it didn't essentially protect you from your own stupidity. Any credentialed professional basically has to be farcically negligent for anything to stick and even if it does damage is usually limited by statute.

That's the whole point. The industry basically strikes a bargain with government to it's benefit. Government lets me run a supply cartel, I promise to enforce minimum standards along the way. Government gives me favorable treatment in court, I do whatever the government's rules say to the detriment of my customers. Society gets just enough scraps to provide the political will to get it done.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#286

Post by orbital-decay »

keepamovin wrote: post #258
orbital-decay wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>because there's ultimately no defense Kind of? It's not fixable as a spherical class of attacks in vacuum, but you can do a lot to mitigate particular cases, and in most cases you can patch unnecessary side channels for the injection to reach the context in an unintended way.

Isn’t it trivially fixable by having a monitor LLM? The monitor just reviews each turn pair and asks, “Is this conversation being manipulated via prompt injection?”

Such LLM would be susceptible to injections itself, even if it's not instruction-tuned (or it would be too dumb to work as a reliable guardrail). Chain injections are trivial enough, current black box style agentic systems are easily reverse engineered in practice if you have any understanding. You can mitigate it in a way similar to the security of any human organization, but fundamentally it's a cat and mouse game, just like in any human organization.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#287

Post by Insimwytim »

zahlman wrote: post #64
b-kf wrote: post #9

bit 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…

That is absolutely a horrible dark pattern and abuse of the technology.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#288

Post by blini-kot »

NamTaf wrote: post #149
Mg6yDfjp5U wrote: post #10

I 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…

[flagged]

yeah, and somebody mounting i.e. some sort of audio/video equipment might make a mistake of putting flammable wire through firewall, while a software engineer in a different field (i.e. embedded or network firewall) might get lawful action in case of a design flaw

Licenses and reprimands are not bulletproof as those are often portrayed: take 737MAX for example, or Ford Pinto, or bridges, which fail every day as it seems

the only good investigation on the matter I've seen is this one: https://www.hillelwayne.com/talks/crossover-project/

and it states that yes, software engineers are in fact engineers -- and some investigation of the same order of magnitude is needed to disprove it

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#289

Post by nojs »

flexagoon wrote: post #151
Tiberium wrote: post #14

Earlier 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.

I don't think it is. It reads exactly the way I would write it myself.

Would you really write “Private video titles aren't just metadata”?

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#290

Post by [deleted] »

charcircuit wrote: post #133
zahlman wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The web really doesn't, and shouldn't, depend on these things. I use a JavaScript whitelisting tool, so that I can allow JavaScript on pages where it's merited, when the trust for that functionality has been earned. Nowadays it's used for things that have been possible in plain HTML for decades. In this case, text has been added to HTML that causes otherwise visible text not to display, presumably so that it can fade…

You are smacking your own face by disabling it. Instead of trying to get the entire world to conform to the requirements of your special browser, why won't you have your browser conform to the needs of the world.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN