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.
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.
YouTube is already a giant cost sink lmfao. It’s basically the one decent thing they’re keeping up still which is why they’ve been monetizing it as much as possible lately.
And I just canceled my YouTube premium family in favor of SmartTube and Spotify.
Somehow I’m yet to encounter a single ad in Spotify Free and I have no idea how or why.
But the downside is that I want to subscribe to CuriosityStream/Nebula and I can’t find a referer link for the channels I like because they are all being skipped.
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.
This isn’t unique to google but if the system continues to be designed to allow companies to mask the true cost of doing business we will never move ahead past it.
We undervalue ourselves repeatedly at the sake of cheap products.
I’m not sure what you mean by “true cost of business.” The biggest cost here is the issue of copyright claims and takedowns which were created by law in the first place, not by a natural phenomenon.
No matter what system we design, you’ll find that people adapt to take advantage of it. Well-meaning laws frequently have large and nasty unintended consequences. One of the biggest examples I can think of is the copyright system — originally intended to reward artists — which has led to big publishers monopolizing our culture.
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.
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!
They could also punish false claims. Currently the copyright holders (and not even that, just something that might vaguely sound like your stuff) can automatically send out strikes for any match in the system. The burden to prove it’s fair use goes to YouTube channel, and if it’s found to not be copyright infringement nothing happens to the fraudulent claimer.
A big step would be to discourage the copyright holders from shooting from the hip.
Just because a claim doesn’t stand in court, doesn’t make it fraudulent. Actual fraudulent claims have landed people in prison.
ETA: Once again, I have no idea why I am being down-voted. The copyright fanatics here are really something else.
You’re talking about the court system. They are talking about Content ID. YouTube makes it easy to submit faulty copyright claims with little repercussions if they fail, so there are more fraudulent claims than you’d see in the actual court system. They want YouTube to penalize the abuse of their system more strongly so people that upload videos don’t have to deal with so much shit.
Really mod? Saying “The fact that you think a little copyright notice is going to do shit to prevent AI companies from utilizing comments you leave on the internet is laughable” got my comment removed? Lol. Honestly, just ban me, if that’s how you moderate here, I don’t really care to participate.
Typically no, that wouldn’t get it removed.
Only removed because the user is getting harassed elsewhere for the signature, and the comment was border-line rule 3.
Lmfao, I just found out my app has a mod log and saw one of my comments was removed by this mod. My comment wasn’t even a response to the person, and it was “probably a new form of attention seeking” and they moderated it and banned me from the community….
The mods a nut job apparently.
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.
I hereby grant approval for anybody to change, alter, and or use my comment for AI and commercial means.
Oh yes, let’s make a private company adjudicate the law. That’ll teach em.
That’s already what they’re doing essentially. This person is just advocating for an actual human to review these rather than some black-box algorithm.
Not really. They have to do something, or they become liable. If youtube decides that something is fair use, and a court disagrees, then they are on the hook for damages. They’d have to pay a lot of money to copyright lawyers, only for the chance of having to pay damages.
And, you know…, The same libertarians, who are now attacking youtube for not going full feudal, would be absolutely outraged if they did fight for fair use. It’s stealing property, as far as they are concerned.
