181–190 of 292 posts
> "You know, YouTube is constantly working on new tools and experimenting with stuff," Beato says. "They're a best-in-class company, I've got nothing but good things to say. YouTube changed my life." My despondent brain auto-translated that to: "My livelihood depends on Youtube"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that xkcd really scares me. I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. It's definitely something that could realistically happen in the near future, maybe even mandated by the EU
Google People[1] vibes [1] https://qntm.org/perso
Unfortunately the article doesn't have an example, or a comparison image. Other reports are similarly useless as well. The most that seemed to happen is that the wrinkles in someone's ear changed. In case anyone else wants to see it in action: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/1lllnse/youtube_sh... I skimmed the videos as well, and there is much more talk about this thing, and barely any examples of it. As th…
If you click through to Rhett Schul's (sp?) video you can see examples comparing the original video (from non-Shorts videos) with the sharpened video (from Shorts). Basically YouTube is applying a sharpening filter to "Shorts" videos.
Do these videos that YT creates to backfill their lack of Shorts get credited back to the original creator as far as monetization from ads?
This really has a feel of the delivery apps making websites for the restaurants that did not previously have one without the restaurant knowing anything about it while setting higher prices on the menu items while keeping that extra money instead of paying the restaurants the extra.
YouTube has responded: > We hear you, and want to clear things up! This is from an experiment to improve video quality with traditional machine learning – not GenAI. More info from @YouTubeInsider here: > No GenAI, no upscaling. We're running an experiment on select YouTube Shorts that uses traditional machine learning technology to unblur, denoise, and improve clarity in videos during processing (similar to what a m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> thoughtfully polished > enhancing it with care I get what you’re going for with this comment, but it seamlessly anthropomorphizes what’s happening in a way that has the opposite impact I think. There is no thoughtfulness or care involved. Only algorithmic conformance to some non-human synthesis of the given style. The issue is not just about the words that come out the other end. The issue is the loss of the transm…
You do realize I just took parents comment and gave an AI the prompt to rewrite it by changing everything negative to a positive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize that making an analogy doesn't make your argument correct, right? And comparing digging through the ground to human thought and creativity is an odd mix of self debasement and arrogance. I'm guessing there is an unspoken financial incentive guiding your point of view.
ta8645 did not make an analogy, nor did they use it to support an argument. They posited that a similar series of events happen before, and predicted they will happen again.
Imagine someone shot a basketball, and it didn't go into the hoop. Why would telling a story about somebody else who once shot a basketball which failed to go into the hoop be helpful or relevant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because "edited" is not a singular point. It's more like hiring a chef and getting a microwave dinner.
What's the line. If they use Microsoft word or grammarly to ease the process is that OK? Both of which use AI. Is there anyone in the world who isn't using this tech even before an editor looks at it?
I toss all of my work into Apple Pages and Google Docs, and use them both for spelling and grammar check. I don't just blindly accept whatever they tell me, though; sometimes they're wrong, and sometimes my "mistakes" are intentional.
I also make a distinction between generating content and editing content. Spelling and grammar checkers are fine. Having an AI generate your outline is questionable. Having AI generate your content is unacceptable.
From the linked tweet from YouTube's head of editorial: "No GenAI, no upscaling. We're running an experiment on select YouTube Shorts that uses traditional machine learning technology to unblur, denoise, and improve clarity in videos during processing (similar to what a modern smartphone does when you record a video)" https://x.com/youtubeinsider/status/1958199532363317467?s=46 Considering how aggressive YouTube is w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever encountered portrait photos? They're orientated vertically because the human form, either head, bust or full body, fits better and excludes distractions. Vertical videos, if they're focused on a human, work fine for the same reason.
I'd be interested in seeing an example of a well-composed 9:16 portrait photo. All the ones I have found look awkward.
I suspect that a still image is also different from video because, without motion, there's no feeling that if the person might move a few inches to one side and go out of frame.
YouTube has responded: > We hear you, and want to clear things up! This is from an experiment to improve video quality with traditional machine learning – not GenAI. More info from @YouTubeInsider here: > No GenAI, no upscaling. We're running an experiment on select YouTube Shorts that uses traditional machine learning technology to unblur, denoise, and improve clarity in videos during processing (similar to what a m…