YouTube’s system for suppressing low-quality AI content mistakenly targeted Kurzgesagt, leaving the channel with its worst-performing upload since 2013.
Reminds me of that comic the other day
Kurzgesagt: Let’s keep our art human made.
Google: Kurzgesagt, your content looks like this low quality AI slop!
🤖: I’D LIKE TO THANK KURZGESAGT FOR BEING A BIG INSPIRATION TO ME.
At the same time YouTube offers a prompt to generate more AI content.
No, this is just a stunt to claim that it is difficult to detect AI slop, when in reality they want that content as it is more addictive, especially to kids.
Intentional stunt? That’s highly unlikely.
It is difficult to detect AI slop, probably exponentially so when it’s a video compared to image or text. I don’t know why you said it like there’s a ready to use solution YouTube isn’t using for some reason.
Vacuum up the internet, provide generative “AI” for people to spew tons of garbage on to the internet. Everyone hates AI, and advertisers don’t want ads showing against AI slop. AI can’t accurately detect AI and kills real content providers that advertisers want to show ads for.
Brilliant. What will they come up with next?
is Youtube/Google speed running their death?
We need decentralized video platforms that have revenue sharing.
that’s what happens when your AI slop detector is AI slop
Nah thats correct kurzgesagt is slop
İt feels like humans have no rights to speak or dislike or express any opinion online only fake numbers matters and the best part is ai slop is feeding from ai slop to make more ai slop ı wonder when this nonsense comes to end
Funny, because I can still see a lot of slop still on the site.
The goddamn banchode running the biz, and greenlit this garbage moderation. Fuck AI.
I’m sure the bill gates money will protect them lol
Use AI channel blocker, but I guess most of you people use phones or tablets so you’re fucked either way
i mean this tell you everything that you need to know: as soon as the animation quality of a channel is good enough, it gets accused of being AI. what does this tell us about the quality of AI output?
It sounds like your argument here is that AI animation is so legitimately great that it is on par with talented animators. Quite frankly, fuck that, no matter how visually polished AI animations may look, they are generally quite soulless and flat.
The real issue is that people are so reflexively anti-AI that they accuse anything that registers any doubt at all of legitimacy of being AI, even without evidence. This has hurt many legitimate artists who were forced to reveal more than they wanted to about their creative process just to prove to detractors that they didn’t use AI. While hatred of AI “art” is very defensible, directing that hate any anyone you have a mere suspicion of is just making things worse for real artists.
And yeah, the visual clues that something is slop are getting more and more subtle, and that does pose a problem for our ability to quickly differentiate, but that absolutely does not mean than that the slop has equal value to human-created works. Anyone arguing otherwise is just telling the world that they are anti-Human. I which case, I recommend taking a look in the mirror and considering that maybe not all humans inferior to a GPU, just you.
look i know that this gets a lot of hate but the current trajectory of “you need to prove your worth to the world to have a legitimate reason to exist” is just not sustainable. fuck all that “we support that artist”, we should be supporting the person, whether they output art or not.
the current rage against AI is 90% driven by the idea that humans need to produce output sothat we can donate to them and give them money sothat they can live. and frankly, that’s a dystopian idea in my eyes.
the current rage against AI is 90% driven by the idea that humans need to produce output sothat we can donate to them and give them money sothat they can live.
What an absolutely insane straw man
Despite them being a little out of wack and a terrible communicator, they do have a point. AI’s main selling point is centered around how it can make everyone more productive as if we actually need even more productivity. We’re all more than productive enough, AI is giving us nothing but unemployment(as those left are told to work harder), more climate destabilization, and reduced quality of life for every single living thing nearby a data centre.
Their first comment was also just plain bad, not gunna defend that at all. They seem kinda loopy.
You gotta work on your communication, I have zero clue what you’re trying to say. You start off heavily implying at AI is of a high quality, saying nothing else, and then go on about being pro-working class/pro person(I think?), but do it in a way that has holes in just the weirdest places.
That a lot of people are trying to imitate Kurzgesagt’s signature style?
yeah exactly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 brought and shiny. The only actual study I could find online, told participants which is which, kind of defeating the purpose in my opinion.
There was recently a study using human short stories and LLM generated short stories prompted to write a similar story. The participants where told which stories were AI generated, but sometimes they were lied to, and told a human-written story was AI generated.
The study showed that people liked the AI stories more. It also showed that if someone has a negative bias against AI generated content, they’d claim the AI story was worse, even if it were actually the human story and they were just told it was AI.
Also, another test was performed where they provided a story and asked them if it was AI generated or human generated. The participants could only tell the AI written story 45% to 50% of the time. Essentially, they were guessing.
I think many people have taken a mental snapshot of the quality of AI generated content from a couple years ago and just assumed it hasn’t improved since then.
Yeah that mirrors my findings too… my hypothesis was that everyone would clearly prefer the human equivalent art, but I was disappointed to be proven wrong. That’s the nature of science though, sometimes you get your presumptions smacked down.
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.
nah, they are doing that because they are good taught consumers who know well how to follow orders obediently. It’s just so convenient to not think, just do what they tell them. aah have you seen that animation, and the sound effect?!
We need a law that requires AI-generated videos to be watermarked and huge fines for the streaming companies that allow unmarked videos.
That won’t work for long. Generation can be hosted in a country outside the jurisdiction.
Current services do need such a law anyway, and many already are watermarked. But I’m just saying it wouldn’t even slow down spammers once they figure it out.
To be clear, it’s the streaming companies should be fined. If YouTube shows an unmarked video in the US then they get fined for doing so.
The content generation is another matter that’s more difficult to enforce.
that’s why the law shouldn’t apply to just generation. as long as something is delivered (even if over the internet) to EU places, then the EU law mandating AI labels applies.
Well that would mean holding social media liable.
That would be fantastic. But it seems unlikely, sadly.
I feel It is less that AI content is difficult to detect and more that the AI technology Youtube is using to detect it is complete trash.
I respectfully disagree.
Have you seen what Minimax H3 can output, on a desktop? Even dirt-cheap AI video gen is basically undetectable now. I think all YouTube can filter is the absolute “bottom barrel” spammers still using some old model because they don’t know any better.
And if they train detectors on “stereotypical” AI output like Ghibli style or flat colors or whatever, they’re just going to nuke channels like Kurzgesagt while most AI slop spammers adapt to get through. There’s literally nothing for detectors to go on anymore.
…But also, YT doesn’t even care.
The filters make next quarter look better because they do catch the bottom barrel, and that’s all that matters.
If the slop videos get through, the average user won’t see the difference either, so why should they care?
There’s literally nothing for detectors to go on anymore.
It’s harder for users as well. Even youtubers I’ve followed for a while have started using the recipe of having a ridculous thumbnail such as “WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER BUY THIS” with an arrow pointing to something. After a couple of times of catching me because I own one of the things the arrow is pointing to (and then watching a 10:01 long video not talking about the item in question) I decided not to fall for it. I noticed that discovery of a new channel got hard. They’re all following the recipe now since I guess youtube mandates it, so it’s the same bas relief thumbnails that seem like they pose a question and a video that doesn’t answer it. We’ll end up with a new Betteridge’s Law and the resource youtube once was is lost forever and we’ll stand around making dumb faces thinking how we’re all getting ripped off…
I wish more people that oppose ai would actually keep up with it so they don’t regurgitate outdated information, or claims that nobody will use it when it stops being subsidized.
Makes me angry my country is now split as far as AI slop awareness is concerned: some are opposed (look up so-called Pax Silica), while others are embracing the garbage full on as if it’s gonna make them more money, and still others unaware it could affect them sooner or later, especially as the government thinks AI is a boon when it’s really not.
To be fair, people generally won’t keep up with something they aren’t interested in, much less something they are actively disinterested in. That’s reasonable.
I do have an irrational pet peeve of people making claims on something they know little about though, which is why I may have come on as hostile…
that’s extremely rational
Seems the same pattern at X, probably because they hired in an ex-YouTuber at the top. Moderation algorithms are universally very poorly written and don’t appear to have gotten better in the last 6-8 years when they began using them to replace human moderators. On X they seem to have a timer for new accounts that puts a fake label on accounts as if they’re spamming or a bot, when it’s just a real user with opinions the algorithm is trained to dislike. Same exact crap the old Twitter did. They put the source code on the web and it showed how if you posted or replied on any of a broad range of topics, your account was scored lower until you were deemed low quality and made invisible. It’s like they just wanted cat memes and recipes from elderly women, but not many of them on Twitter or X. Probably because they hired in people from companies where non-controversial topics were a much larger share of what was discussed there. 1 trick ponies who weren’t suitable for doing the same job at X.
There’s no way to boost ad views or MAU with that approach. I believe X will never be profitable due to those people running the show and Musk not ever hiring anyone a lot better to run X. Musk had a similarly bad experience with Solar city. Another company he didn’t know enough about to manage himself and the people he hired to do it weren’t good enough either.
Youtube and X is basically a private monopolies. They only care about the profit margins. Any and all extra expenditure to R&D or consumer satisfaction is just a cut to their profits today and since they don’t have any real competition, so why raise quality of service above the bare minimum? Their only real selling point is that everybody uses them, so everybody will have to keep using them, if they want to be seen or access most things. they don’t care if they serve slop, because you and me and the wider masses are going to eat it up anyway.
X loses money so no margins there. Twitter has never made a profit in its history that I’ve ever heard of. Facebook’s on the way out. 20 years ago it was college age users. 10 years ago it was people over 50. Now it’s a lot of commercial accounts posting as they do on other basically dying or dead platforms. The only sign of life is streaming video and chats related to streaming video. YouTube has been losing users and content creators to both Rumble and Twitch. The right 1/3 of America is on Rumble while Twitch took the gamers. Youtube still has business but they basically gave away enough business to make those 2 relevant.
Alphabet’s dependent on Youtube, cloud services, web search, and related ads to pay for the unprofitable parts of the business, which appears to be where the bulk of their employees work, rather than at the earnings-generators. If they screw up youtube, then they will have to lay a lot of the people in the fun and interesting jobs off, along with the many layers of bureaucracy and non-coders working in jobs that nobody’s quite sure what they do there. They can’t really afford to screw up youtube any more than they have. It can’t merely do well. It has to do great to pay all of their bills. Very similar to the action-hero movies at the movie studio paying for all the unprofitable ones that most people work on
What’s mostly keeping those platforms afloat is, unfortunately, people in developing countries where social media usage is very heavy to the point it’s literally its own internet such as Facebook’s walled garden.
Using AI to detect AI has, time and time again, proven to be a broken idea. Here is Google with a genius idea: use AI to detect AI, to prevent AI videos.
Keep in mind folks, this is a global top-three company in terms of revenue.
…while offering video making AI tools.
When all you have is a hammer, and you’ve bought all the hammers in the entire world, through the end of next year,
This is also a company pushing AI
