622
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2026
622 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
86957 readers
5431 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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?!
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?
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.
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