←back to thread

296 points jakub_g | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
npteljes ◴[] No.45012214[source]
Unfortunately the article doesn't have an example, or a comparison image. Other reports are similarly useless as well. The most that seemed to happen is that the wrinkles in someone's ear changed. In case anyone else wants to see it in action:

https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/1lllnse/youtube_sh...

I skimmed the videos as well, and there is much more talk about this thing, and barely any examples of it. As this is an experiment, I guess that all this noise serves as a feedback to YouTube.

replies(3): >>45013140 #>>45013680 #>>45013925 #
nmeofthestate ◴[] No.45013680[source]
If you click through to Rhett Schul's (sp?) video you can see examples comparing the original video (from non-Shorts videos) with the sharpened video (from Shorts).

Basically YouTube is applying a sharpening filter to "Shorts" videos.

replies(4): >>45014361 #>>45014819 #>>45017429 #>>45019065 #
1. dylan604 ◴[] No.45014361[source]
This makes sense. Saying YT is applying AI to every single video uploaded would be a huge WTF kind of situation. Saying that YT has created a workflow utilizing AI to create a new video from the creator's original video to fit a specific type of video format that they want to promote even when most creators are NOT creating that format makes much more sense. Pretty much every short I've seen was a portrait crop from something that was obviously originally landscape orientation.

Do these videos that YT creates to backfill their lack of Shorts get credited back to the original creator as far as monetization from ads?

This really has a feel of the delivery apps making websites for the restaurants that did not previously have one without the restaurant knowing anything about it while setting higher prices on the menu items while keeping that extra money instead of paying the restaurants the extra.