this post was submitted on 31 May 2024

0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

58458 readers

4579 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Washing machine chime scandal shows how absurd YouTube copyright abuse can get (arstechnica.com)

submitted 4 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

From the article...

But while many think that YouTube's system isn't great, Trendacosta also said that she "can't think of a way to build the match technology" to improve it, because "machines cannot tell context." Perhaps if YouTube's matching technology triggered a human review each time, "that might be tenable," but "they would have to hire so many more people to do it."

That's what it comes down to, right there.

Google needs to spend money on people, and not just rely on the AI automation, because it's obviously getting things wrong, its not judging context correctly.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Google is absolutely allergic to hiring humans for manual review. They view it as an existential issue because they have billions of users which means they’d need to hire millions of people to do the review work.

[–] nixcamic@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That seems a bit excessive, say all 8 billion people were using Google products, 8 million reviews would be 1 per thousand users which seems like many more than are needed since almost all users of Google are passive and don't create content.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

There are an estimated 720,000 hours of video uploaded to YouTube per day. At 8 hours per day it would take 90,000 people just to watch all those videos, working 7 days per week with no breaks and no time spent doing anything else apart from watching.

Now take into account that YouTube users watch over a billion hours of video per day and consider that even one controversial video might get millions of different reports. Who is going to read through all of those and verify whether the video actually depicts what is being claimed?

A Hollywood studio, on the other hand, produces maybe a few hundred to a few thousand hours of video per year (unless they’re Disney or some other major TV producer). They can afford to have a legal team of literally dozens of lawyers and technology consultants who just spend all their time scanning YouTube for videos to take down and issuing thousands to millions of copyright notices. Now YouTube has made it easy for them by giving them a tool to take down videos directly without any review. How long do you think it would take for YouTube employees to manually review all those cases?

And then what happens when the Hollywood studio disagrees with YouTube’s review decision and decides to file a lawsuit instead? This whole takedown process began after Viacom filed a $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube!

[–] nixcamic@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

But they don't have to review every video, just the ones that are flagged by the AI then contested, which is probably a fraction of a percentage of all of them.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 4 months ago

US Corporations: But we can't start paying people to do work! That would completely wreck our business model!

Workers: So you would actually be bankrupt? Your corporation is that much of an empty shell?

US Corporations: Well, we really just don't want to have to spend less time golfing, and having to pay people might eventually cut into golf funds and time.

[–] fiercekitten@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

God I fucking hate YouTube.

[–] sugartits@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Okay.

Don't use it then.

You're not using it, right?

[–] fiercekitten@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm allowed to use it and be critical of it at the same time. But I use it way less these days because adblocker or not, it's become a user-hostile and censored place and every video is following the same formula in order to get seen the most and the whole thing feels gross.

[–] PlantObserver@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ya I'm so sick of hearing "can't mention that, YouTube will demonetize me" on videos (or what amounts to that with censored language, topics, blurred guns now, etc.) Just makes it very clear we're living in a corporate echo chamber where everything must align with what advertisers want. How about what the viewers want??? Fuck the advertisers

[–] kalleboo@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

How about what the viewers want

As long as the viewers refuse to pay for content, they get what the customers (the advertisers) want.

YouTube Premium actually pays out to "demonetized" channels. What people call "demonetized" is actually called "limited ads".

[–] sugartits@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Pardon me Sir/Madam,

This is Lemmy.

All everyone does is shit on YouTube because they can no longer easily grab content without paying for it and they expect YouTube to constantly serve them content forever for free because "I'm SuRe GoOgLe CaN aFfOrD iT"

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

tldr: "Soon after, YouTube confirmed on X that Audego's copyright claim was indeed invalid. The social platform ultimately released the claim and told Albino to expect the changes to be reflected on his channel within two business days."

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Machines can't tell context

They could back when everyone was using pre-AI context engines that were actually capable of it. Autocorrect is in the same boat. It used to change things correctly to match the context, and now a days it will change words to other words that entirely don't work within the rest of the context.

Though I am doubtful whatever detects music and sounds in the video literally ever had any kind of context seeking in the first place.