Most active commenters
  • exe34(11)
  • littlestymaar(7)
  • moi2388(4)

←back to thread

YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

(www.bbc.com)
296 points jakub_g | 24 comments | 24 Aug 25 10:37 UTC | HN request time: 1.063s | source | bottom
Show context
Springtime ◴[25 Aug 25 07:07 UTC] No.45011126[source]▶
Youtube says this was done for select Youtube Shorts as a denoising process. However most popular channels on Youtube, which seem to be the pool selected for this experiment, typically already have well lit and graded videos shouldn't benefit much from extra denoising from a visual point of view.

It's true though that aggressive denoising gives things an artificially generated look since both processes use denoising heavily.

Perhaps this was done to optimize video encoding, since the less noise/surface detail there is the easier it is to compress.

replies(3): >>45011162 #>>45011186 #>>45011544 #
alex1138 ◴[25 Aug 25 07:17 UTC] No.45011186[source]▶
Can I just start a petition to remove Shorts entirely?
replies(4): >>45011216 #>>45011287 #>>45012294 #>>45014248 #
artninja1988 ◴[25 Aug 25 07:22 UTC] No.45011216[source]▶
Just don't watch them?
replies(4): >>45011252 #>>45011289 #>>45011478 #>>45016362 #
moi2388 ◴[25 Aug 25 07:29 UTC] No.45011252[source]▶
How does that remove them?
replies(1): >>45011685 #
1. exe34 ◴[25 Aug 25 08:44 UTC] No.45011685[source]▶
do you feel a need to stop other people doing things you personally don't like?
replies(3): >>45011917 #>>45012004 #>>45015171 #
2. close04 ◴[25 Aug 25 09:24 UTC] No.45011917[source]▶
I want to remove them from my own feed. I want the button that says "hide" or "show fewer shorts" to actually work and ideally hide them forever. I have to play whack-a-mole on the different devices and browsers to try to hide shorts.
replies(1): >>45012565 #
3. exe34 ◴[25 Aug 25 11:09 UTC] No.45012566[source]▶
are they making you go on YouTube?
replies(2): >>45013007 #>>45024447 #
4. close04 ◴[25 Aug 25 11:52 UTC] No.45012852{3}[source]▶
Well you aren’t wrong but the attitude isn’t helping.

It is my feed as far as it explains to you that it’s not about disabling something for others. It isn’t my feed as far as who actually controls it is concerned.

5. littlestymaar ◴[25 Aug 25 12:13 UTC] No.45013007{3}[source]▶
Yes?

Until content start being published elsewhere it's fair to say we are forced to go to YouTube to access it.

replies(1): >>45014835 #
6. exe34 ◴[25 Aug 25 15:20 UTC] No.45014835{4}[source]▶
who's forcing you?
replies(1): >>45016806 #
7. moi2388 ◴[25 Aug 25 15:50 UTC] No.45015171[source]▶
Yes. That’s the basis of literally every law and regulation known to man.
replies(1): >>45015301 #
8. exe34 ◴[25 Aug 25 16:02 UTC] No.45015301[source]▶
thank goodness that in some countries we have the concept of a private life, where you don't have to like what we do and you can't stop it.
replies(2): >>45027126 #>>45051554 #
9. littlestymaar ◴[25 Aug 25 18:03 UTC] No.45016806{5}[source]▶
Everyone who put mandatory stuff on YouTube and only here. Two last examples I faced recently:

- Companies who put their product instruction manual exclusively on YouTube

- university curriculum who require you to watch contain that is on YouTube only.

Sure I'm free not to buy any manufactured products or not resume my studies, but it's like saying the Gulag was OK because people were free not to criticize Stalin.

replies(1): >>45016944 #
10. exe34 ◴[25 Aug 25 18:11 UTC] No.45016944{6}[source]▶
the shorts are on the home page for doomscrolling. all the examples above will give you a playlist or will embed the videos in their pages. I don't see how shorts on the home page are a problem here? could you clarify please?
replies(1): >>45023633 #
11. littlestymaar ◴[26 Aug 25 08:05 UTC] No.45023633{7}[source]▶
Funny how the “are they making you go on YouTube?” goalpost moved.
replies(1): >>45028453 #
12. animuchan ◴[26 Aug 25 10:00 UTC] No.45024447{3}[source]▶
There are barely any alternatives, so yes, when I'm going to Google's or Meta's properties that's largely against my will. They literally make me, where "they" is a large and diverse group of entities.

To boycott Google I'd be forced to quit my job for example, as it literally forces me into Google's services.

Specifically YouTube has very little in the way of alternatives, but I get what you're saying — I just respectfully disagree with the coping method. Which is to say, on the gradient between "we should suck it up" and "we should Luigi Mangione the person responsible" I fall somewhere in the middle.

13. moi2388 ◴[26 Aug 25 14:34 UTC] No.45027126{3}[source]▶
Because there is a law that says I can’t do that? Gotcha xD
replies(1): >>45051454 #
14. exe34 ◴[26 Aug 25 16:06 UTC] No.45028453{8}[source]▶
"going on YouTube" and complaining about shorts made it sound like you were going to the home page where shorts are shown as an option.

going on YouTube to watch a single video from a manual is a very different thing. I didn't move the goal post, I pointed out your motte and bailey position.

replies(1): >>45038286 #
15. littlestymaar ◴[27 Aug 25 11:41 UTC] No.45038286{9}[source]▶
There no motte, and no bailey, I never talked about shorts in the first place (surprise, there are multiple users on this platform …) I just witnessed your bad faith argument about how people aren't forced to go on YouTube and proved it wrong.

The key problem isn't that YouTube has been degrading its user experience for a while, the problem is that we don't have anywhere else to go as YouTube is the most encroached monopoly in the tech scene (which is no small feat).

replies(1): >>45039576 #
16. exe34 ◴[27 Aug 25 13:44 UTC] No.45039576{10}[source]▶
the whole conversation was about YouTube shorts. I was under the impression you were arguing in good faith - my bad.
replies(1): >>45039926 #
17. littlestymaar ◴[27 Aug 25 14:06 UTC] No.45039926{11}[source]▶
The fact the the conversation was previously about shorts doesn't excuse bad faith rhetorical questions like “are they making you go on YouTube?”.

The funny thing is that you never gave me a slight bit of impression that you were arguing in good faith, and now you whine about that.

replies(1): >>45041915 #
18. exe34 ◴[27 Aug 25 16:38 UTC] No.45041915{12}[source]▶
doesn't sound like you even know what good faith is.
replies(1): >>45045966 #
19. littlestymaar ◴[27 Aug 25 22:10 UTC] No.45045966{13}[source]▶
lol
replies(1): >>45051458 #
20. exe34 ◴[28 Aug 25 12:41 UTC] No.45051454{4}[source]▶
Article 8 of the ECHR.
21. exe34 ◴[28 Aug 25 12:42 UTC] No.45051458{14}[source]▶
yes very funny.
replies(1): >>45074211 #
22. moi2388 ◴[28 Aug 25 12:49 UTC] No.45051554{3}[source]▶
I can’t reply to your other comment so I’ll do it here.

Article 8 can be revoked for public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of the rights of other people, but also for the protection of health and morals.

Given the problems with attention spans in systems like TikTok and shorts, they definitely could ban it even given article 8.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

replies(1): >>45054125 #
23. exe34 ◴[28 Aug 25 16:30 UTC] No.45054125{4}[source]▶
I was explaining the idea of a private life, sorry it went over your head.
24. littlestymaar ◴[30 Aug 25 12:52 UTC] No.45074211{15}[source]▶
Ironic, rather.