ContentID is not AI by any definition of AI, it's signal processing.
I believe the implication is that youtube has replaced the human reviewers with an ML-based system.
ContentID isn't learning because it doesn't train to make inferences; it looks for exact signature matches on the audio, normalizing for alterations like pitch changes and equalization.
All sorts of computer applications that are not considered AI have replaced humans. For instance, databases replace clerks having to shuffle papers to and from filing cabinets.
I don't understand why no other video platform has broken into YouTube's market share, after the last couple years' constant stream of PR disasters which mostly have to do with the scale of the platform
ContentID is not AI by any definition of AI, it's signal processing.
It's automated decision-making.
Any algorithm that produces a Boolean result is "automated decision making". You pop in the inputs, let the automaton run, and there is your yes or no.
Humans are to blame for using horrible AI/software. At least if you know your AI is that broken then have some human supervision.
Google prefers to automate everything. Having human supervision would affect the bottomline so is out of the question.
Well, let's say it takes 30 minutes to fully check for copyright compliance 10 minutes of video. This means that the speed of one person checking videos is 1/3 unchecked-minutes per minute, or 1/3upm. 400 hours of content are uploaded every minute to youtube, which makes for 24000upm. You will need to employ 96000 people 24/7 to check all videos. Of course, they can't work 24/7, so a more realistic figure is 150000 people. This isn't menial work, it requires legal knowledge and familiarity with copyright law, so you're looking at hiring entry-level law clerks, which is about 16$/hr or about 33k$/yr. It will cost Google about 5bln$/yr to check all uploaded content manually. Which seems like a lot but is like 10-20% of Alphabet Inc.'s gross profit, so not actually impossible.
YouTube seems to be more of a monopoly than Google Search. If only Facebook created a dedicated site for Facebook videos. Fbtube, fbv.com... Microsoft has a YouTube like service but limits it to enterprise. Since video hosting is such a resource intensive undertaking, I wonder why many free porn sites don't have outages and have no limit on uploads for free users - unlike YouTube competitors.
You can upload videos to facebook though. In fact, that's the only way to get videos to play inline in peoples' timelines.
Yes but you can't browse Facebook videos without a Facebook account. You can view them if people directly link them, but viewing someone's video page is blocked, let alone actually searching for videos.
I know this is just filtering for now, but I've been backing up entire channels for fear they'll one day disappear because global policy or legacy media conglomerates won't allow for it. I imagine the "you" in YouTube will be mostly gone in the next decade. The writing's on the wall.
it's quite a shame. google are not being good chaperones of what has become an amazing service and resource.
hopefully a completely decentralized replacement will arise.
Google prefers to automate everything. Having human supervision would affect the bottomline so is out of the question.
Well, let's say it takes 30 minutes to fully check for copyright compliance 10 minutes of video. This means that the speed of one person checking videos is 1/3 unchecked-minutes per minute, or 1/3upm. 400 hours of content are uploaded every minute to youtube, which makes for 24000upm. You will need to employ 96000 people 24/7 to check all videos. Of course, they can't work 24/7, so a more realistic figure is 150000 p…
Are the only 2 choices (1) no human in the loop and (2) only humans in the loop?
Google prefers to automate everything. Having human supervision would affect the bottomline so is out of the question.
Well, let's say it takes 30 minutes to fully check for copyright compliance 10 minutes of video. This means that the speed of one person checking videos is 1/3 unchecked-minutes per minute, or 1/3upm. 400 hours of content are uploaded every minute to youtube, which makes for 24000upm. You will need to employ 96000 people 24/7 to check all videos. Of course, they can't work 24/7, so a more realistic figure is 150000 p…
Why not simply have humans review the videos that are automatically flagged? That would be a significant improvement over the current state of affairs, and would command a significantly more reasonable price.
I saw a great "joke" the other day. It said, "If Shazam or Siri can't identify a song for you, make a quick video and upload it to YouTube. Within a few seconds you'll get a copyright takedown telling you the name of the song".
I've seen nature videos where there's no sound but the birds chirping, and YouTube is still able to hear someone playing All-Star on Mars and flag the video. It's really incredible tech. EDIT: The article actually mentions some similar examples: http://c4sif.org/2012/02/youtube-identifies-birdsong-as-copy...
I got a copyright strike once for a video with no apparent reason. After closer inspection, I could in fact hear a radio playing somewhere in the background if I really turned up the volume. I found it incredible that YouTube’s algorithm was able to pick it up at that signal-to-noise ratio.
Nice, do you have any summary of what process you take to back up channels? I've considered the same in the past, but found that there are a lot of crappy/sketchy plugins, and not too many legit/decent ones that actually get the highest quality copy of the content.
youtube-dl is great for this, you can run it periodically against a channel and only download new videos. See the --download-archive option. Using "-f best" will fetch the highest quality format, but you can be more specific with filters like "-f best[filesize<50M]".
I thought it already fetches the highest quality by default?