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

YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 292 posts

Re: YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

#271

Post by blinding-streak »

therobots927 wrote: post #135
blinding-streak wrote: post #114

When you upload a video to YT, it's heavily compressed. Your pristine creation is converted 10 ways to Sunday, which then can be played back in a variety of formats, speeds, and platforms. Long before you even uploaded that video, for free, to give the world the chance to see your creative genius, you agreed to this process, by agreeing to Youtube's T&C's. People may be upset, and I get that. But it's not like the vi…

Compression doesnt put words in your mouth. Do you honestly think they're the same thing or are you just being pedantic on purpose?

I think you need to re-read the article.

Re: YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

#272

Post by giantrobot »

crazygringo wrote: post #234
giantrobot wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again, this isn't GenAI. Yet.

How about we stick to the facts of what is actually happening? I mean, I'm also not Brad Pitt. "Yet."

Given Google's history and the fact they rolled this out without notice or consent makes me feel comfortable saying "yet". If YouTube can get away with making GenAI YouTubers (via some likeness sign off buried in the T&C) without paying the originals I'm sure they'd love to do so. All the ad impressions with none of the payout to creators.

Their AI answers box (and old quick answer box) has already affected traffic to outside sites with answers scraped from those sites. Why wouldn't they make fake YouTubers?

> I mean, I'm also not Brad Pitt. "Yet."

Not with that attitude!

Re: YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

#273

Post by beefnugs »

hliyan wrote: post #83

A chill ran down my spine as I imagined this being applied to the written word online: my articles being automatically "corrected" or "improved" the moment I hit publish, any book manuscripts being sent to editors being similarly "polished" to a point that we humans start to lose our unique tone and everything we read falls into that strange uncanny valley where everything reads ok, you can't quite put your finger on…

This is why shadow banning rubbed people so wrong. I can't prove it, but i gave up on online dating a long time ago because i found a couple of automated systems would just not send messages and not tell you (in a middle of an already active conversation)

Re: YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

#274

Post by Frieren »

gruez wrote: post #126
Frieren wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even smartphones do it automatically for you, digital post-processing to compensate for the limitations of the cameras. The level of post-processing matters. There is a difference between color grading an image and removing wrinkles from a face. The line is not cut clear but these companies are pushing the boundaries so we get used to fake imagery. That is not good.

>There is a difference between color grading an image and removing wrinkles from a face. You're implying the latter doesn't happen normally but denoising (which basically every smartphone camera does) often has the effect of removing details like wrinkles. The effect is especially pronounced in low light settings, where noise is the highest.

> but denoising (which basically every smartphone camera does) often has the effect of removing details like wrinkles.

I do not get the argument of "if nothing happens when an ant bites you then I can shot you with a cannon be cause it is the same thing just larger". The impact on society matters for me, and it is very different. Justifying AI at any cost is a marketing strategy that will hurt us long-term.

Re: YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

#275

Post by meowface »

ndriscoll wrote: post #93
meowface wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The response to junk food and cigarettes and drugs is to avoid them, not make them illegal.

It's fair to make it illegal to sell or advertise those things to children at least.

That's fair, yeah. To a degree. Else you go full UK.

Re: YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

#276

Post by littlestymaar »

exe34 wrote: post #241
littlestymaar wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone who put mandatory stuff on YouTube and only here. Two last examples I faced recently: - Companies who put their product instruction manual exclusively on YouTube - university curriculum who require you to watch contain that is on YouTube only. Sure I'm free not to buy any manufactured products or not resume my studies, but it's like saying the Gulag was OK because people were free not to criticize Stalin.

the shorts are on the home page for doomscrolling. all the examples above will give you a playlist or will embed the videos in their pages. I don't see how shorts on the home page are a problem here? could you clarify please?

Funny how the “are they making you go on YouTube?” goalpost moved.

Re: YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

#277

Post by animuchan »

exe34 wrote: post #81
animuchan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

are they making you go on YouTube?

There are barely any alternatives, so yes, when I'm going to Google's or Meta's properties that's largely against my will. They literally make me, where "they" is a large and diverse group of entities.

To boycott Google I'd be forced to quit my job for example, as it literally forces me into Google's services.

Specifically YouTube has very little in the way of alternatives, but I get what you're saying — I just respectfully disagree with the coping method. Which is to say, on the gradient between "we should suck it up" and "we should Luigi Mangione the person responsible" I fall somewhere in the middle.

Re: YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

#278

Post by moi2388 »

exe34 wrote: post #204
moi2388 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. That’s the basis of literally every law and regulation known to man.

thank goodness that in some countries we have the concept of a private life, where you don't have to like what we do and you can't stop it.

Because there is a law that says I can’t do that? Gotcha xD

Re: YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

#279

Post by exe34 »

littlestymaar wrote: post #276
exe34 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the shorts are on the home page for doomscrolling. all the examples above will give you a playlist or will embed the videos in their pages. I don't see how shorts on the home page are a problem here? could you clarify please?

Funny how the “are they making you go on YouTube?” goalpost moved.

"going on YouTube" and complaining about shorts made it sound like you were going to the home page where shorts are shown as an option.

going on YouTube to watch a single video from a manual is a very different thing. I didn't move the goal post, I pointed out your motte and bailey position.

Re: YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

#280

Post by gruez »

Frieren wrote: post #274
gruez wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is a difference between color grading an image and removing wrinkles from a face. You're implying the latter doesn't happen normally but denoising (which basically every smartphone camera does) often has the effect of removing details like wrinkles. The effect is especially pronounced in low light settings, where noise is the highest.

> but denoising (which basically every smartphone camera does) often has the effect of removing details like wrinkles. I do not get the argument of "if nothing happens when an ant bites you then I can shot you with a cannon be cause it is the same thing just larger". The impact on society matters for me, and it is very different. Justifying AI at any cost is a marketing strategy that will hurt us long-term.

>I do not get the argument of "if nothing happens when an ant bites you then I can shot you with a cannon be cause it is the same thing just larger".

this argument fails because at least in the examples provided, it's closer to the non-gen ai denoising/upscaling algorithms than telling chatgpt to upscale an image.

>The impact on society matters for me, and it is very different. Justifying AI at any cost is a marketing strategy that will hurt us long-term.

There's no indication it's AI, except some vague references to "machine learning".

Post reply on HN