141–147 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've never found a single content creator that put out stuff you liked so much you wanted to see everything they did? Not a single one? Do you prefer TV instead?
I never use the bell. I just subscribe and go through my subscribed list to watch videos, and for some I add to my rss reader.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Running .includes() on the client does not imply that Google has any "understanding" of what was said. It only implies that they ran .includes() on the client. includes() does not "understand" anything. Do you want to have a good faith conversation about this? Because going back to debating the meaning of "understanding" after I already said this was misleading is not a good way to have a conversation. >The thing I…
> Do you want to have a good faith conversation about this? Because going back to debating the meaning of "understanding" after I already said this was misleading is not a good way to have a conversation. Call it "understanding", call it "content aware analysis". I guarantee that their closed captioning service has much more of that quality than this new feature does. > Can we set up a baseline that there is a differ…
Still can't get away from that "understanding" debate. You're also now equating an understanding of context with an understanding of meaning. An understanding of meaning isn't needed to differentiate between "to", "two", and "too" because they're all used differently in sentences. When the system encounters those, I don't think it goes to the definitions and tries to find which word makes the most meaningful sentence. Most times the specific homophone can be inferred based on things like part of speech and the part of speech can often be inferred from a sentence without knowing any meaning.
For example, would the system be able to properly handle homophones that are grammatically similar? Could it consistently transcribe sentences like "I have Celiac disease and enjoy the taste of rose water, so I prefer flower to flour in my deserts." That is an easy sentence to understand for anyone who knows the meaning of those words, but there are no grammatical or structural indications on which flower/flour to use.
But either way, that is getting way too deep in the weeds compared to where my point started. This feature calls attention to an analysis of meaning because the user sees the software reacting to the meaning of the content of the video. A transcript does not call attention to an analysis of meaning because the behavior of the software does not change based on the content of the video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you want to have a good faith conversation about this? Because going back to debating the meaning of "understanding" after I already said this was misleading is not a good way to have a conversation. Call it "understanding", call it "content aware analysis". I guarantee that their closed captioning service has much more of that quality than this new feature does. > Can we set up a baseline that there is a differ…
>Again, I don't see it. CCs are not content agnostic: they have to have semantic understanding of the words said in order to produce accurate results. How do you think CCs differentiate between the words "to", "too" and "two" without looking at the surrounding words and having some idea of contextual usage? How do you think CCs can tell between "there" and "they're" without understanding if the speaker is referring t…
Your first comment - the one that started all this - was, as far as I can understand, arguing that this feature indicated that Google had the capabilities to do more advanced - understanding? processing? meaning analysis? - than it had done in the past. If I keep coming back to that, well, it's because it appears to be your main point. If it's not, please correct me.
> Most times the specific homophone can be inferred based on things like part of speech and the part of speech can often be inferred from a sentence without knowing any meaning.
This is not true. I don't think I have enough more responses on HN to fully explain why homophones can not be inferred without understanding meaning, but I encourage you to go and read about how transcription works!
> For example, would the system be able to properly handle homophones that are grammatically similar?
I mean, this is easy enough for you to check. Here's some videos about flour / flower - notice how the CCs correctly determine if the word is flour or flower with almost 100% accuracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8vLjPctrcU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdaRvErv2Kc
> This feature calls attention to an analysis of meaning because the user sees the software reacting to the meaning of the content of the video.
Are you saying you specifically think that YT is analyzing meaning from this feature, or just some generic user? I think you are smart enough to know that it's not true, but perhaps my mom might not understand that CCs require infinitely more processing power and this feature is just a drop in the bucket. (If you really still don't think it's true, definitely go read more about how CCs are made!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Could they identify things that aren't suitable for YouTube Kids but end up there anyways? I sure wish they did.
They would detect that Avenue Q looks so much like Sesame Street and put that on Youtube Kids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Up Next and recommended videos don't require understanding the content of the videos. They could, as an example, find other users that watch similar videos and pick a video you haven't seen out of the things the other users have watched. 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 t…
> The Mr Beast thing is still blowing up, could they automatically identify illegal lotteries? OotL; Mind sharing a link or two? Familiar with MrB but no idea about anything blowing up. Quick search doesn't make the referenc obvious.
That’s the original video that kicked it off. It’s pretty mundane as far as internet controversy goes. The lotteries were run poorly and as such were probably illegal, not exactly uncommon on YouTube. The show largely targets kids, so there’s some accusations of it effectively being gambling for kids.
After that people dug into his whole life and found out one of his employees was convicted of statutory rape and he was aware, which is a bad look for a channel mostly watched by children.
It’s like a 3/10 on internet controversy scales. Doing something common and dumb but not obviously malicious, and then just stuff that looks bad without concrete evidence anything bad actually happened.
It’s not terribly interesting, I only saw because of a comedian making fun of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Again, I don't see it. CCs are not content agnostic: they have to have semantic understanding of the words said in order to produce accurate results. How do you think CCs differentiate between the words "to", "too" and "two" without looking at the surrounding words and having some idea of contextual usage? How do you think CCs can tell between "there" and "they're" without understanding if the speaker is referring t…
> But either way, that is getting way too deep in the weeds compared to where my point started. Your first comment - the one that started all this - was, as far as I can understand, arguing that this feature indicated that Google had the capabilities to do more advanced - understanding? processing? meaning analysis? - than it had done in the past. If I keep coming back to that, well, it's because it appears to be you…
Here is what I said. "It highlights how much Google analyses the content of its videos... It isn't that I didn't know Google had this ability...". My point was not that I learned about Google's capability from this feature or that this capability was new, it is that this calls attention to Google looking for meaning in the content of the video. A transcript does not call attention to Google looking for meaning regardless of how the transcripts are prepared.
>I mean, this is easy enough for you to check. Here's some videos about flour / flower - notice how the CCs correctly determine if the word is flour or flower with almost 100% accuracy.
Both those videos include the correct homophone in the title and description of the video. Choosing the correct one is not an indication of the system using the meaning of those words, it is pattern recognition. Every use of "flower" means the next usage is less likely to be "flour". The specificity of the example I used was important because it used both "flower" and "flour" in a way that can only be distinguished by the meaning of the words.
>Are you saying you specifically think that YT is analyzing meaning from this feature, or just some generic user? I think you are smart enough to know that it's not true, but perhaps my mom might not understand that CCs require infinitely more processing power and this feature is just a drop in the bucket. (If you really still don't think it's true, definitely go read more about how CCs are made!)
This feature is a glowing sign that Youtube as a company analyses the content of the videos for the meaning of what is said in those videos. You are too deep into the technical details trying to assign credit for what aspect of Youtube does the "understanding" or which "require[s] infinitely more processing power".
Think of this feature like receiving mail and you see one of the letters has already been opened. That could make you feel like your privacy was invaded in a way you wouldn't feel after receiving a postcard. And now we have spent several comments debating whether a torn envelope indicates whether anyone read the letter and whether a postcard is private.
I noticed a few weeks ago that when people said "subscribe" the subscribe button had a little light show that was kind of cool. From a technical perspective I like the attention mechanism and that it's automated.