YouTube made AI enhancements to videos without warning or permission

(www.bbc.com)

296 points jakub_g | 1 comments | 24 Aug 25 10:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Show context

npteljes ◴[25 Aug 25 10:07 UTC] 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 ◴[25 Aug 25 13:33 UTC] No.45013680[source]▶

>>45012214 #

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. giantrobot ◴[25 Aug 25 15:19 UTC] No.45014819[source]▶

>>45013680 #

Flickr used to apply an auto-enhancement (sharpening, saturation, etc) effect to photos[0]. It would be really weird seeing a photo locally and then see the copy on Flickr that looked better somehow.

Aside: The mention of Technorati tags (and even Flickr) in the linked blog post hit me right in the Web 2.0 nostalgia feels.

[0] https://colorspretty.blogspot.com/2007/01/flickrs-dirty-litt...

↑