alt Hacker NewsIn theory you're right, in practice you're not.
We don't need the metaphysical solution to the problem of detecting AI videos for the rest of time. Certainly, it's fairly easy to make something that mostly works most of the time. Enough to be very, very useful.
Replies
People feel strongly about AI generated content; this is a case where false positives can destroy credibility and disrupt careers.
"Works most of the time" isn't good enough here.
And this philosophy will only lead to Kafkaesque nightmare scenarios for 1-2% of the population, so we're still coming out ahead.
This definitely needs substantiation. I've NEVER seen such usable tools EVER. AI flagging in general has always been very sketchy IME.
People make a living off this platform though, this could be really bad for someone that lives off of YouTube to have their videos labeled as AI generated. This would still be OK if there was a person at YouTube you could contact to manually review and reverse the decision, but that doesn’t really exist so there’s no one you can really appeal to in a timely manner.
Please tell me this is a joke, or that you're not building anything important at work. It's a very well known problem that YouTube's algorithmic moderation hurts a lot of honest creators, and their ability to make a living, when there is a false positive or is abused.
> something that mostly works most of the time
Problem is that at YouTube's scale the remaining "some of the time" ends up being a collossal figure. On top of that, YouTube's effective monopoly position magnifies the damage done by false positives.
[dead]
This attitude of "individual cases don't matter as long as the average case is somewhat covered" is exactly why the world's going to shit.
The parent post's worry is warranted, IMO.