←back to thread

YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

(www.bbc.com)
296 points jakub_g | 4 comments | 24 Aug 25 10:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.611s | source
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 #
dsign ◴[25 Aug 25 12:27 UTC] No.45013106[source]▶
The well is already poisoned. I'm refraining from hiring editors merely because I suspect there's a high chance they'll just use an LLM. All recent books I'm reading is with suspicion that they have been written by AI.

However, polished to a point that we humans start to lose our unique tone is what style guides that go into the minutiae of comma placement try do do. And I'm currently reading a book I'm 100% sure has been edited by an expert human editor that did quite the job of taking away all the uniqueness of the work. So, we can't just blame the LLMs for making things more gray when we have historically paid other people to do it.

replies(5): >>45013425 #>>45013545 #>>45013762 #>>45015526 #>>45016348 #
brookst ◴[25 Aug 25 13:06 UTC] No.45013425[source]▶
If something needs editing, why would you care what tool they use?

It’s like saying you wouldn’t hire an engineer because you suspect they’d use computers rather than pencil and paper.

replies(2): >>45013534 #>>45013578 #
1. djfdat ◴[25 Aug 25 13:21 UTC] No.45013578[source]▶
Because "edited" is not a singular point.

It's more like hiring a chef and getting a microwave dinner.

replies(2): >>45013767 #>>45014250 #
2. Agentus ◴[25 Aug 25 13:43 UTC] No.45013767[source]▶
to further this point. a lot about writing is style. editors sometimes smother the style in the name of grammar, conventions, or correctness, inoffensiveness. sometimes the incorrectness is the entire point, and the editor erases the incorrectness not realizing it was intentional.

ive heard of many professions complain about their version of “editors” from comedians, to video producers, and radio jockies.

3. ragequittah ◴[25 Aug 25 14:29 UTC] No.45014250[source]▶
What's the line. If they use Microsoft word or grammarly to ease the process is that OK? Both of which use AI. Is there anyone in the world who isn't using this tech even before an editor looks at it?
replies(1): >>45014458 #
4. thomascgalvin ◴[25 Aug 25 14:47 UTC] No.45014458[source]▶
For me, an important distinction is whether or not a human is reviewing the edits suggested by an AI.

I toss all of my work into Apple Pages and Google Docs, and use them both for spelling and grammar check. I don't just blindly accept whatever they tell me, though; sometimes they're wrong, and sometimes my "mistakes" are intentional.

I also make a distinction between generating content and editing content. Spelling and grammar checkers are fine. Having an AI generate your outline is questionable. Having AI generate your content is unacceptable.