YouTube’s system for suppressing low-quality AI content mistakenly targeted Kurzgesagt, leaving the channel with its worst-performing upload since 2013.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    21 days ago

    Yeah, it’s bad.

    Non-watermarked slop is going to be impossible to detect going forward, and the false detections are going to get worse.

    The fundamental issue is the monetization scheme. It’s just too lucrative for spammers. YouTube’s economics are broken, and getting worse.

    …Hence, no matter what YouTube says, YouTube is going to double down on “detectors,” because Alphabet leadership couldn’t care less about destroying longstanding creators. Their only objective is to suppress just enough spam to keep ad buyers unconcerned next quarter, no matter the long term damage; that’s someone else’s problem.

    • thehatfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      The best solution would be to turn away from detectors, which will always be a losing game, and return to crowdsourced curation through users likes and ratings.

      But that would end up with too many of the corporate propaganda videos getting tanked with dislikes so YouTube will never go for that.

      • DrakeAlbrecht@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 days ago

        For every ten users who decry AI voices and animation, a thousand more will blindly click “Like” and “Subscribe”. The people have spoken, and they want to eat straight from the fertilizer pile.

        • MrQuallzin@pie.eyeofthestorm.place
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 days ago

          People only click like and subscribe because their other options were taken from them. They got tired of the people speaking up so removed the options to do so.

          • Zarobi@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 days ago

            I’ve run my own anecdotal and admittedly small blind trials on friends and family. Most people unfortunately preferred the A.I. slop to real human content. My theory is because it tends to be bright and shiny. The only actual study I could find online, told participants which is which, kind of defeating the purpose in my opinion.

            • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              20 days ago

              It’s engagement optimized, that’s why.

              That’s the whole point of the spam; being engagement bait.

              Same thing applies to any human made clickbait, and people have demonstrated they simply cannot help themselves, and click it.

  • WFH@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 days ago

    One of the largest slop-machines targeting one of the most vocal and popular anti-slop edutainment channels as slop feels like a targeted attack…