←back to thread

YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

(www.bbc.com)
296 points jakub_g | 8 comments | 24 Aug 25 10:37 UTC | HN request time: 1.501s | source | bottom
Show context
hliyan ◴[25 Aug 25 11:37 UTC] No.45012749[source]▶
A chill ran down my spine as I imagined this being applied to the written word online: my articles being automatically "corrected" or "improved" the moment I hit publish, any book manuscripts being sent to editors being similarly "polished" to a point that we humans start to lose our unique tone and everything we read falls into that strange uncanny valley where everything reads ok, you can't quite put your finger on it, but it feels like something is wearing the skin of what you wrote as a face.
replies(12): >>45012940 #>>45013081 #>>45013106 #>>45013184 #>>45013226 #>>45013285 #>>45013423 #>>45013918 #>>45014061 #>>45014113 #>>45015666 #>>45022301 #
ta8645 ◴[25 Aug 25 12:37 UTC] No.45013184[source]▶
My guess is that guys being replaced by the steam shovel said the same thing about the quality of holes being dug into the ground. "No machine is ever going to be able to dig a hole as lovingly or as accurately as a man with a shovel". "The digging machines consume way too much energy" etc.

I'm pretty sure all the hand wringing about A.I. is going to fade into the past in the same way as every other strand of technophobia has before.

replies(9): >>45013278 #>>45013417 #>>45013457 #>>45013478 #>>45013489 #>>45013608 #>>45015167 #>>45015575 #>>45019603 #
1. therobots927 ◴[25 Aug 25 13:05 UTC] No.45013417[source]▶
You realize that making an analogy doesn't make your argument correct, right? And comparing digging through the ground to human thought and creativity is an odd mix of self debasement and arrogance. I'm guessing there is an unspoken financial incentive guiding your point of view.
replies(1): >>45013510 #
2. lotsofpulp ◴[25 Aug 25 13:15 UTC] No.45013510[source]▶
ta8645 did not make an analogy, nor did they use it to support an argument.

They posited that a similar series of events happen before, and predicted they will happen again.

replies(2): >>45013537 #>>45014437 #
3. therobots927 ◴[25 Aug 25 13:17 UTC] No.45013537[source]▶
That's the definition of using an analogy to support an argument.
4. pessimizer ◴[25 Aug 25 14:44 UTC] No.45014437[source]▶
Why, pray tell, would a similar series of events be relevant to a completely different series of events except as analogy? Let me use an extremely close analogy to illustrate:

Imagine someone shot a basketball, and it didn't go into the hoop. Why would telling a story about somebody else who once shot a basketball which failed to go into the hoop be helpful or relevant?

replies(1): >>45015461 #
5. cgriswald ◴[25 Aug 25 16:15 UTC] No.45015461{3}[source]▶
Your extremely close analogy gets to the crux of why people are disagreeing here: It doesn’t have to be analogy. You can be pointing out an equivalence.
replies(1): >>45016096 #
6. therobots927 ◴[25 Aug 25 17:06 UTC] No.45016096{4}[source]▶
Regardless this was my whole point. The original point was a fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
replies(1): >>45016356 #
7. cgriswald ◴[25 Aug 25 17:28 UTC] No.45016356{5}[source]▶
I'd be interested in your reason for thinking so but I think you can see your supporting argument is not compelling:

> And comparing digging through the ground to human thought and creativity is an odd mix of self debasement and arrogance.

> I'm guessing there is an unspoken financial incentive guiding your point of view.

replies(1): >>45017330 #
8. ◴[25 Aug 25 18:38 UTC] No.45017330{6}[source]▶