_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
URI YouTube to automatically label AI-generated videos
mulderc wrote 11 min ago:
It is wild the type of AI generated videos I have seen on YouTube.
Today I saw a short video on the history of OS/2 that I am 99% sure was
AI made and I was just left wondering why would someone make that? Is
there a market for a video like that?
tmtvl wrote 36 min ago:
I'm now reminded of a game one of my friends came up with (or found
somewhere, I dunno): write a text and try to get 100% on an 'is this
text AI-generated' website. Could be neat to do the same with videos
and the YT AI label.
techtuate wrote 41 min ago:
Good that they will, but will it really make any difference to viewing
behavior? They could consider paying AI creators less if they want to
encourage human creativity - else this is just another label which gets
ignored.
alexbezhan wrote 47 min ago:
Its possible to appeal if you have a legit channel.
My mom actually got demonetized accidentally.
She managed to appeal and successfully got it fixed by Youtube.
apparent wrote 50 min ago:
How will this deal with videos that are just b-roll and then AI audio?
I end up seeing a lot of those when looking for educational videos for
my kids. Basically, if a video was posted after 2023, and the narrator
is not visible in the first minute, my radar is up.
It's not clear what these rules are or how they will be applied to
videos of this variety.
TBH, I have found a few of them to be quite good, but most of them are
junk, and I don't want my kids to become accustomed to that kind of
video.
leoc wrote 1 hour 20 min ago:
> If a creator doesnât specify whether or not they used AI, but our
systems detect significant photorealistic AI use, we will now
automatically apply a label.
It doesn't seem clear if this sweep will pick up AI-generated maths,
physics and CS videos on YouTube, which use AI-generated scripts,
AI-generated voices and graphical animations which are presumably
produced from AI-generated code for input to Manim or the like. Or all
the AI-generated documentaries about military vehicles which apparently
use a similar mix of AI-generated scripts and voiceovers combined with
old video footage and photos pulled from archives at the AI's
direction. These have been absolutely flooding their categories on
YouTube for a while now.
There's a thoughtful video by maths YouTuber Mathemanic about this [1]
. It includes a discussion of YouTube's "Inspirations" tab [2] (based
on a Tibees video [3] ) about Google's own efforts to push AI-generated
video ideas at channel owners. Videos which result from "Inspirations"
concepts presumably won't (in general) be flagged as AI, unlike Veo
work-product.
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRO_QonhC2c
URI [2]: https://youtu.be/mRO_QonhC2c?t=331
URI [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd5EHfRerGI
yearesadpeople wrote 1 hour 22 min ago:
YouTube blog: _'...when creators disclose they've used AI tools.'_
I think this labeling strategy has an immediate issue.
steveBK123 wrote 1 hour 39 min ago:
And yet when I reply "AI slop" to stuff I get downvoted, flagged,
banned...
LogicFailsMe wrote 3 hours 1 min ago:
Typical Google...
Labels: yes
Option to filter them entirely, no
matt3210 wrote 3 hours 6 min ago:
Now update the ad blocker to hide them automatically
robertheadley wrote 3 hours 45 min ago:
This is what we need to move forward.
untitled-now wrote 4 hours 33 min ago:
I agree , AI got so good that you can hardly distinguish real video
from AI generated , especially cartoons
LocalExt wrote 4 hours 48 min ago:
I would remove automatically the video if the creator did not label as
AI. Or making a new part of Youtube like AiTube.
sometimelurker wrote 5 hours 2 min ago:
hot take: terrible idea
this just applies high quality selection pressure to have ai videos be
more realistic
deaton wrote 5 hours 52 min ago:
I hope they're able to reliably detect it. I think theres some hope for
images and videos, but ai generated text detectors are already throwing
false positives at an absurdly high rate.
dmos62 wrote 6 hours 9 min ago:
Children and seniors are victimized by AI content on a huge scale.
Regular adults like most of us here don't ever get such videos in their
feeds.
I saw kids spend many hours a day watching automatically generated
videos. Not always AI-generated, sometimes it's AI-assisted and
procedurally generated.
It is quite unbelievable how vulnerable weaker minds, for the lack of a
better term, are to AI content.
I saw a group of 3-8 yo kids spend hours watching obviously
procedurally generated content that is completely random and
contentless: it was more about an intense rhythm, imagery of violence
(animated stick figure motorcycle accidents with blood and slow-down
effects at random points), a lot of movement, chaos, very short inserts
of people laughing hysterically on some middle-eastern tv show and
similar. Brainrot doesn't feel like hyperbole for this content.
Another time, I saw an 80 yo lady watch a doctor sit in front of the
camera and speak about a health topic for 45 minutes straight. Only
it's not an actual person, but a convincing AI avatar: his gestures and
face match what he is saying, the voice is convincing too, but for the
45mn he doesn't make any movement that is not a gesture lastin 1-3
seconds. And his tone of voice has no variation that is longer than a
few seconds either. If you fast forward, he always looks the same. It's
all extremely monotonic. The lady couldn't believe that it's not a real
person.
Currently, AI videos are a gold mine for black hats.
konschubert wrote 1 hour 9 min ago:
This isnât a response to you, but just so it has been said: 3 to
8-year-old kids have no business being on YouTube alone. AI or not.
maxglute wrote 2 hours 27 min ago:
>victimized
Or you know, preference. Nice steady predictable AI slop delivered at
mono qualities can be very comfy. It's like sleep tube, people
reading wiki or random articles, comment threads but with varying
energy to time pass. It's good enough, better than most human creator
content.
wiseowise wrote 2 hours 40 min ago:
Something, something, people want to see this, therefore GenAI and
algorithms are good (no joke, someone actually replied this to me on
the forum).
munk-a wrote 1 hour 48 min ago:
It's a tool. Tools can be used for good or ill. This tool is the
hotness right now so it's quite overused in a lot of poorly fitting
situations. This particular usage serves no socially beneficial
purpose and needs to be regulated into non-existence (we at least
shouldn't pay people to do it). The tool is still useful for a
bunch of things but some people get irrationally defensive if you
critique their favorite tool. It's a good tool and it's a flawed
tool - like every other tool.
meowface wrote 2 hours 36 min ago:
GenAI is good. (LLMs are GenAI, for example.)
This particular subset of GenAI is very very bad.
saltyoldman wrote 2 hours 55 min ago:
Gen Beta is soooo cooked.
diegolas wrote 3 hours 45 min ago:
tbh those brain rot videos pre-date AI generation, i know because my
little BIL used to watch those kind of random non-stop action and
movement vids in like 2020
dopamean wrote 4 hours 6 min ago:
> Regular adults like most of us here don't ever get such videos in
their feeds
I know my story is just an anecdote but it really makes me question
if this is even true. I search for things that I want to learn about
on YouTube, often about wildlife or the environment, and get served a
TON of AI slop. My feed is now full of it. It's extremely frustrating
and has actually led to me using YouTube in this way a lot less over
the last few months. I have been hoping that I'd be able to filter by
this one day.
wan23 wrote 4 hours 22 min ago:
My elderly uncle is completely addicted to these. We can barely
complete a conversation without him getting bored and pulling out his
phone to watch these nonsense videos. I don't even understand what
the point is. The ones he watches are these clearly procedurally
generated stories. It'd be one thing if the content was actually
interesting, but ugh.
jb1991 wrote 2 hours 55 min ago:
Now I am super curious, I really need to see an example of one of
these videos!
gregschlom wrote 2 hours 31 min ago:
Here's a representative example that my father in law (in his
70s) shared with me the other day:
URI [1]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=puRg-4ZvNYs
wedigshit wrote 1 hour 21 min ago:
These are crazy (and scary)
bpoyner wrote 2 hours 20 min ago:
somebody in the comments mentioned this is a point where the AI
glitched out.
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puRg-4ZvNYs&t=150
taude wrote 2 hours 26 min ago:
4.2K likes.
Maybe I should be generating generic AI made videos. LOL.
keybored wrote 2 hours 43 min ago:
The man ran into the woman. [Young adult Far East man runs into
young adult Far East woman.] The woman said sorry, I am such a
clutz. The man said, thatâs okay. The man fell in love with the
woman. The man dated the woman for many weeks. The man met the
womanâs father [Tekken grandpa]. The man did not recognize the
father. The man and the woman got married. Turns out that the
father was actually the owner of the company where the man worked
and the daughter was the heiress. The man and the woman went out
for dinner.
majani wrote 2 hours 45 min ago:
Hang out with some 5-10 year olds and give them control of
YouTube, they'll show you within 2 minutes
MichaelZuo wrote 3 hours 6 min ago:
There are so many of these stories⦠it makes me wonder if humans
in general have âgeneral intelligenceâ either.
Or whether itâs only a small subset who do.
sublinear wrote 1 hour 1 min ago:
What people do is not well correlated with what they know. You
can't reduce people to their behavior. You can reduce machines to
their behavior.
If you disagree, I would strongly suggest you review where else
you might be making this incorrect assumption.
Fogest wrote 4 hours 26 min ago:
What's even worse is that these videos are being used for shady
purposes as well. I start to fear a lot for our future elections. I
have heard parents/grand-parents mention videos they have seen from
politicians that are simply fake. They totally believed claims they
said these politicians made, but when you look it up you discover
these things were never said and that they fell for AI deep-fake
style videos. So far most of these videos have been made to promote
scams. I'm sure many of us have seen these videos. Like the classic
Elon Musk promoting some crypto scam videos.
This makes me worried for future elections as old people often are
making up a large percentage of the voter base, and they are also
easily fooled by these kinds of videos. When you combine this with
the algorithmic feeds, it is a recipe for disaster. They are going to
see videos making politicians they already don't like as being
horrible monsters because of fake AI videos, and then see videos
making their preferred person look better with other AI videos.
And as AI and deep-fake technology continues to get better and
better, this is only going to trick more and more people. Iran has
already been caught many times using AI videos to fake war footage to
try and make America look worse in the recent war.
Scammers are also using live deep-fake video to scam people in
real-time via voice and video calls. Romance scams are going to get
more and more effective.
cynicalpeace wrote 4 hours 34 min ago:
kids simply shouldn't be looking at a screen, AI-generated or not.
Screen time for kids (and adults for that matter!) should be way way
scaled back. That falls on the parents.
Bad parents give their kids phones and tablets and that's a hill I
will die on.
keybored wrote 2 hours 34 min ago:
Back in my kid days we had friends who had game consoles and PCs. I
know itâs quaint now but we watched each other play and played on
the same computer or TV. There wasnât a way to avoid tainting our
minds no matter how much they tried to protect us from duh screens.
Okay I guess if they raised us like some rural homeschooling
Christians, but for some reason people will complain about that
kind of parenting too.
solumunus wrote 3 hours 34 min ago:
Ours conditionally get extremely limited and supervised screen
time. I feel this is the way to do it.
dmos62 wrote 4 hours 3 min ago:
Many parents find parenthood difficult and are happy that something
distracts their kid. Further, kids that tend to get more addicted
to stuff like this tend to live in stressful circumstances.
It's easy to say be a better parent, or produce a better
environment for your kid, but it's not as easy to help people with
that. If we can make social media healthier for everyone, that's a
big deal.
macintux wrote 3 hours 15 min ago:
Many parents grew up with TVs as their screens. It's a reasonable
extrapolation to think that their kids will be fine with devices
as their screens.
hylaride wrote 1 hour 42 min ago:
I've thought about this, too. The difference is that for most
of us, TV shows ended at the top/bottom of the hour. I grew up
watching morning cartoons in the 1980s starting at 6am, but the
times that the shows ended reminded me that it was time to get
dressed, eat, etc.
Now, all the video services have feedback loops where they can
determine what keeps people glued and provide more of that.
Some "programs" like cocomelon have dialled that up to 11.
The only defence is the terrible parental controls and/or
taking devices away. That almost always results in "fights".
wiseowise wrote 2 hours 38 min ago:
TVs didn't create echo chambers tailored to a person.
macintux wrote 2 hours 28 min ago:
I didn't say it was an accurate extrapolation.
bad_haircut72 wrote 4 hours 5 min ago:
do you have kids?
untitled-now wrote 4 hours 31 min ago:
I guess it depends on the age of the kid , if a kid is 11-12-13 yo
, you can hardly do anything about it. I remember of how I was at
that age , now I am 38.
narag wrote 4 hours 43 min ago:
I've found a curious variety of AI videos: releases of motorbikes
that don't exist, brought by Youtube algorithm. I guess the point is
just clicks or ads money. Some comments, by bots or gullible users.
No longer seen recently, not sure it's because YT's crackdown or me
repeteadly clicking "not recommend me this channel" (there're a
handful)
munk-a wrote 1 hour 44 min ago:
From what I've seen YT takes "Don't show me this channel again"
very seriously but the effect appears to be limited just to you.
It would be very silly for YT to fail to enforce that preference as
a user who is willing to go through an annoyingly multi-step flow
to express their displeasure is on who would never monetarily
engage in the content anyways - but neither it (nor the reporting
system) seem to have a significant impact on the visibility of that
content to others since both are often used for brigading or
personal preference.
Lambdanaut wrote 5 hours 19 min ago:
The process designed to optimize for attracting our attention has
done what it was designed to do: optimized for attracting our
attention, at the cost of all other incentives.
The image of a throbbing, mutating, dark spiral is conjured in my
mind. The more it is watched, the more it begins to grow into a
twisted visage of the viewer as it attempts to recreate all of their
desires and fears within itself. It is meaningless yet becomes all
meaning.
kiba wrote 3 hours 55 min ago:
It's time to let people choose their own algorithm and force upon
the platforms a marketplace for algorithms.
sunandsurf wrote 31 min ago:
There needs to be regulation so algorithms are turned off by
DEFAULT for every user - with the option to turn on for those
that want a dose of brainrot
munk-a wrote 1 hour 55 min ago:
This is a case of psychological exploitation - in a free market
of algorithms the current dominant flavor on platforms would win
for the majority of people. As unpopular as it may be in this
forum the real solution here is government regulation as we need
to work as a society to protect our brains from these exploits.
majani wrote 2 hours 43 min ago:
Pointless. 95% would stick to the default
scotty79 wrote 4 hours 51 min ago:
> process designed to optimize for attracting our attention
namely: "social" media
TremendousJudge wrote 4 hours 58 min ago:
this stuff always reminds me of There is no antimemetis division
[0]
From Case Hate Red:
> With some minutes to kill, he checks the headlines on his phone.
Yet again, something dreadful and new which he doesn't understand
is going viral. Today's fad is, you paint a black vertical
rectangle on the wall, or on a mirror, or over the top of a
picture. And then you chant something. Wheeler can't quite pick out
the words of the chant. They're in a language he's not familiar
with. He's no singer, but he's performed pieces with lyrics in
Latin, German, Greek, French⦠whereas this language has a bizarre
manufactured sense to it, as if it were simply English with the
vowels and consonants all switched around.
[0]
URI [1]: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/antimemetics-division-hub
isoprophlex wrote 1 hour 37 min ago:
That indeed, and The Entertainment or the samizdat from Infinite
Jest. A film so entertaining to its viewers that they become
lifeless, losing all interest in anything other than endless
viewings of the film.
crdrost wrote 1 hour 16 min ago:
Back when people would read blog posts about the erosion of
ownership in the face of intellectual property law, I used to
blog about something similar...
Of course the MPAA is against copying, I would say -- the ideal
situation for the MPAA would be if when you left the theater,
they could just wipe your brain of the memory of the film you
just watched. You just remember that you had a fun time with
your friends and it was a good movie, but you don't remember
any of what happened there. "but those are MY memories" -- no
no no we didn't touch YOUR memories, we left your memories just
fine -- we only removed a copy of OUR copyrighted content from
the world, consistent with our terms of service for the
theater. But if you want to experience it again, by all means,
come back to watch it again.
"That sounds like it would stifle all cinematic innovation" --
no you don't understand! Our artists are suffering because they
don't get the full amount of money they are due because of all
of these unlicensed copies moving about the world in peoples'
heads. When people are discussing how amazing that movie was,
our artists deserve to have them in a controlled cafe attached
to the theater where they can control that experience and fully
profit off of it. Don't you get it? Bigger financial
incentives, bigger payoffs for successful artists -- therefore
more artists, and more cinematic innovation! When you play back
these unlicensed copies in your "memory" and pirate our works,
you're really just contributing to monoculture by not rewarding
the people who made your favorite things.
mythrwy wrote 5 hours 47 min ago:
My girlfriend mindlessly watches those sometimes. I think they are
from China maybe.
I heard one in the background last night and it went something like
this:
"A girl becomes pregnant in college and it turns out to be triplets.
But she doesn't know who the father is. She raises the children and
they grow up very successful. One becomes a surgeon. The children's
father is actually a famous and one day he is giving a speech. While
he giving the speech one of the children dashes out of the audience
and hugs his leg!"
Total logistical nonsense. Doesn't even have a story line that fits.
I asked her why she watches that but it's mostly just background
noise why she is doing something. It's awful.
e2le wrote 2 hours 43 min ago:
I might be preaching to the choir however it being background noise
doesn't mean your brain isn't processing that stimuli. In a way,
you are what you consume.
chalmovsky wrote 2 hours 27 min ago:
Oh, please. Can we stop with the pseudo-profound psychologizing?
PS: I am aware I am shouting into the void.
solumunus wrote 3 hours 32 min ago:
Is she otherwise intelligent reasonably? I just canât wrap my
head around anyone consuming content like this.
mythrwy wrote 2 hours 48 min ago:
She is reasonably intelligent. Not necessarily intellectually
inclined but not stupid by any means.
And I'm with you, I can't wrap my head around it either.
To be fair I didn't really get her choice of movies before AI
(superhero flicks, hallmark type movies, 200 watches of
"Twilight" etc). I think to her it's just sort of "turn off your
brain comfortable background noise" from inquiries.
I'm different and when I watch things I pay attention and think
about it and notice plot holes etc etc. I watch to be entertained
or informed and if it doesn't do either of those I tune out. So I
can't sit through most movies even before AI. But some people I
think just "vibe watch" for lack of a better term.
I also have never understood people who come home and watch
"whatever is on TV" or watch news all day or that kind of thing
either so I'm not sure the problem is AI in this case. It just
produces more volume of junk than the junky junk that existed
previously. Some of the AI stuff is egregiously horrible though.
emursebrian wrote 5 hours 49 min ago:
I mostly get AI slop ads for scam products, though slop videos do
creep into my shorts feed.
scotty79 wrote 4 hours 50 min ago:
it became for me a quick signal for me that I'm watching an ad,
because it doesn't normally pop up in my feeds
rkozik1989 wrote 5 hours 28 min ago:
There's a bar by me where the owners made all of the decor with
ChatGPT. It feels surreal in there.
dmos62 wrote 4 hours 57 min ago:
What do you mean they made it with ChatGPT?
pc86 wrote 3 hours 48 min ago:
My guess is, at best, uploaded photos of the space and said
"give me things to decorate this."
jccc wrote 6 hours 0 min ago:
And unfortunately the other way around could be about as bad:
âDonât believe what you just saw â Thatâs just AI
propaganda!â
shevy-java wrote 6 hours 21 min ago:
By the way, also this:
> As this technology continues to improve, creators remain in control.
Well, some folks disagree that they are in control. See the rise of
FairTube - granted, FairTube has infrastructure issues, but the problem
is Google controlling videos via youtube. This has to change in the
long run.
Also:
> Our commitment to responsibility
^^^ pointless self-promo by an AI slop adCompany. They censor at will.
I know that because so many videos I had bookmarked, suddenly were
taken down at a later time - and not by the original author. Often you
can find the same (!!!) video again on youtube.
tkcashman wrote 6 hours 24 min ago:
I see the comments below with the positive and negative aspects of AI,
and I think there are very good points made. I've had this discussion
before with many friends of mine, and the point I usually make is this:
good or bad, there's no going back to the "good old days."
I think of those movie trailers where the cast appears to plead with us
to watch their upcoming movie in a theater, "the way it's meant to be
seen." Do I agree with them? Yes. Do I think that as a society we're
going to give up on streaming and go back to the theaters en masse? Not
a chance in hell.
You can always take a side on whether progress or change is a good
thing or not, but what you can't do is turn back the clock. So the real
question is: where do we go from here?
nsxwolf wrote 4 hours 58 min ago:
Good movies still pack theaters.
tkcashman wrote 4 hours 51 min ago:
They do indeed, but the trend is clear. In the 1940's, people in
the US went to the movies about 25 times a year. In 2002, it was
just under 5 times a year. Today, it's around 2 times a year.
elpakal wrote 6 hours 35 min ago:
Now can LinkedIn please label posts
spaceman_2020 wrote 6 hours 40 min ago:
Good. This should be done everywhere. I have ZERO interest in watching
an AI movie or an AI song or an AI video
Genuinely don't care if its good or not. It's not for me
thrownaway561 wrote 7 hours 1 min ago:
This is what YouTube needs to start doing:
1. Allow us to filter any and all content based on category or tag,
this would include AI tagged videos
2. Demonetize any and all videos that incentivize antagonizing people
(Looking at you prank videos)
3. Allow the reporting of video for "Criminal Activities"
4. Bring back the number of dislikes
5. Put the "not interested" option on video playback page (currently
only on the video thumbnail)
6. Put the "do no recommend this channel" option on the video playback
page (currently only on the video thumbnail)
filoeleven wrote 5 hours 52 min ago:
5 and 6 are enough of a pain point that I habitually open ALL videos
in a new tab now, just so that I have the original feed view to nuke
the channel from if it's shit.
danlitt wrote 7 hours 20 min ago:
Hopefully this will also include human-generated content with AI
scripts, which are not that hard to detect but require a certain amount
of wasted time listening to the slop before I skip the video.
Voblit wrote 7 hours 44 min ago:
about time
jongjong wrote 8 hours 5 min ago:
I got Netflix recently because I wanted my 4 year old son to have a bit
of screen time. He is very active, loves to play outside, draw, paint
and does a lot of different activities so I thought there's no harm in
a bit of screen time... But YouTube was awful because he would end up
watching creepy AI slop videos of extremely colorful 3D cars or
airplanes or whatever... Very repetitive. Or sometimes there would be
videos of colorful painted toys being washed with a monotonous voice
repeating the same thing over and over and saying stuff like "Wow, it's
big" in the most monotonous voice possible (and no, the toy was not
even big)... There's something very creepy about hearing emotionally
charged sentences being expressed with such dull apathetic tone and
saying things that aren't even factually correct. Complete trash. I
could feel myself getting brainwashed in realtime. No more YouTube.
Definitely this AI slop should not be promoted.
pyuser583 wrote 8 hours 16 min ago:
With AI.
theodric wrote 8 hours 32 min ago:
If only they could automatically label all the videos made by real
people with obviously heavily AI-involved scripts. Those "give me the
ick" as the kiddos say these days.
anonymous344 wrote 8 hours 34 min ago:
youtube really needs to go. like myspace. Ruined
if they would offer youtube plus, i would pay:
- no ads. none. nothing
- videos with sponsored content tagged, and option to auto skip
- Option to HIDE ALL AI-videos. ALL. And channels. from search also
- Option to HIDE ALL slideshow-videos (generated) all. From search
also.
- Community driven filter list that would auto-update. To hide all the
shit content.
avadodin wrote 9 hours 42 min ago:
I can appreciate the talent and effort involved in developing new
styles of music by scribbling on paper while being partially deaf, or
dropping photographic painting skills for a weird style mimicking the
anime of the era, but let's not pretend that averageâhumanâlevel
Turing-testâpassing AGArtist has not yet been reached.
At this point, I bet the next human genius is going to be labeled as AI
âby an AI.
pratio wrote 9 hours 54 min ago:
If they could start labelling and allowing me to filter out the shitty
AI Voiceover videos, I might even start using youtube shorts again.
brown_munda wrote 10 hours 6 min ago:
Much needed however, the future is definitely a mixture of AI and human
in every field going forward. It might be relevant in short term but
not for long.
steveharing1 wrote 10 hours 6 min ago:
Something, Youtube should have done earlier. But anyway its a good
step. But again there are many open models out there on HF that could
bypass this just like synthid is not used is every image, similarly not
every chinese AI model wants to get their output detected. Time will
tell how this goes...
comboy wrote 11 hours 23 min ago:
I wonder how are they going to implement it. Many creators with even
decent content use AI-generated visuals. In fact, everything could be
AI-generated visual and whether that would be like Kurzgezagt,
Asianometry or Sabine Hossenfelder content value wouldn't drop
significantly. How do you draw the line?
CrzyLngPwd wrote 11 hours 25 min ago:
I wonder, will this impact those awful shorts that rip out and tack
together the highlight seconds of longer videos and add a terrible AI
voiceover?
aslakhellesoy wrote 11 hours 43 min ago:
They forgot to AI-label that Bender-sounding voiceover in the
articleâ¦
m0nit0r wrote 11 hours 53 min ago:
I really appreciate this. AI content - even if we all use AI - and
especially AI videos are a pain in the b*tt. Ai voice over with Ai
imagery packed in 10-20 minutes lonog videos.
Who watches those anyways?
injidup wrote 12 hours 14 min ago:
Last weekend a group of friends and I sat by the lake. One had a
guitar, and we were all singing off-key to old classics and dancing to
salsa and reggaeton. We were doing it together, and it was great. Much
more fun than listening alone or caring about the authenticity of the
music or not. It was the participation, not the product, that was the
key.
Something went wrong with music and culture in recent times.
Participation became consumption. Everybody got their own headphones,
channels, and separate cultural bubbles. Concerts became about filming
a DJ twiddling a USB controller.
By the lake we tried to get people up and dancing, and one of the girls
led a reggaeton/zumba/salsa session. I had one woman come up and ask
for advice on where to go to get dance lessons. But most people sat
there watching, clearly wanting to take part but scared. People have
learned that creativity and participation are not welcome.
The most amazing thing was a little 10-year-old girl who just sat
herself down in our group of adults. She was so happy to see people
singing and dancing. We chatted to her for a while, and then it turned
out she could play guitar, so we gave her one and she jammed along. Her
mother was observing from a distance and was happy to see her daughter
connecting and participating with strangers.
I don't think the issue is between AI and authentic music. This
argument about authenticity in music is ages old. It's more about the
imbalance in participation between producer and consumer. If AI music
allows someone with less formal musical skills to feel like they are
joining in and making something, then maybe it has its value.
Still, I'll always be more impressed watching someone play their
trained fingers over a piano or guitar. There is more magic in that
than prompting an AI. But if the music is just a backing track to some
other participatory activity like dancing, then the equation is
different again. I honestly couldn't tell â or maybe care â if many
of the Bachata songs played at parties are fully or partially
AI-generated. I suspect a lot are. But most of the reason I'm there is
not to fetishize the authenticity of music, but to hang out with
friends and dance and have a good time.
yousif_123123 wrote 3 hours 18 min ago:
You know its not that much work to learn a couple of open chords on
the guitar and be able to play some songs and participate. And its so
so rewarding to play a song, even one you aren't really excited
about, and to sing and accompany yourself even if its a song that's
like 2-3 chords (like "You Can't Always Get What You Want" by the
Rolling Stones). Just because its YOU making the music and the
sounds, its immediately your interpretation and has your soul in it.
It becomes so meaningful to you to people around you.
You don't have to say I wont be a rockstar, therefore let me use some
AI to make a song, and in doing so give up on the joys of touching
and making sounds with an instrument, a very old human thing we've
been doing all over the world, having someone show you a song, or
look up a youtube video and learning it from some random stranger.
Even better, being in love with a song and finally being able to play
it yourself!
Maybe AI could've sufficed for Paul McCartney's interest in music,
and provided a creative outlet. But we wouldn't have had something as
great and as human as the legacy of the Beatles.
TuringNYC wrote 4 hours 0 min ago:
>> Concerts became about filming a DJ twiddling a USB controller.
This is one of the worst parts of any concert, performance -- having
a sea of phones in front of you recording. In a dark theatre, it is
impossible to watch the actual performance when you have a screen on
super-bright in front of you recording it. Also, some people
literally record on ipads!
All these are reasons i've not opted to do "concert in my living
room" via YouTube and a big screen tv. Not the same, but a lot less
silliness around me.
quietbritishjim wrote 4 hours 21 min ago:
That sounds fantastic but it's essentially a different subject.
You seem to be dismissing any music that you don't have some pretty
close participation in. Did it all start to go downhill with the
invention of the gramaphone? Listening to Ella Fitzgerald or Vera
Lynn or Elvis or Frank Sinatra was irrelevant for those that weren't
actively jamming along with them?
I'm being facetious, I know you don't really mean that. My point is,
listening (on your own, with no musical skill) to good quality music
made by a real human is a valid activity. That's under threat, and
the fact that making your own music with your friends isn't (or at
least is less so) shouldn't detract from that.
deaton wrote 5 hours 49 min ago:
I think many people do see value though in the knowledge that a human
took the time to create a creative work though. Its the same sort of
difference you see between music made by someone who makes music
because they like making music, and corporate music. The latter was
historically kept in check though by the amount of talent necessary
to get taken seriously to make anything.
ShinyLeftPad wrote 6 hours 19 min ago:
> Something went wrong with music and culture in recent times.
Participation became consumption.
There's probably more original music being created now than any time
in history. Constant promotion of AI music is why you think it's not
the case.
> Concerts became about filming a DJ twiddling a USB controller.
If you think being a DJ is more consumption than shouting cover songs
near a lake, maybe you should try learn be a good DJ
> If AI music allows someone with less formal musical skills to feel
like they are joining in and making something, then maybe it has its
value.
If you are a musician you know there're absolute geniuses who have
ZERO formal music skills completely self taught. Some are world
famous names we all know. That was never the problem.
> I honestly couldn't tell â or maybe care â if many of the
Bachata songs played at parties are fully or partially AI-generated.
I suspect a lot are. But most of the reason I'm there is not to
fetishize the authenticity of music, but to hang out with friends and
dance and have a good time.
You contradict yourself. If music really doesn't matter then why AI?
The crippling fear of supporting a real human musician somewhere?
strogonoff wrote 6 hours 33 min ago:
Trying to âlevel the playing fieldâ is antithetical to what art
is. Art is about self-expression and communication.
If we viewed art as some sort of competition or race, then someone
using neuralânetwork-based generative tools could avoid losing the
race; however, everybody would be participating in some sport A and
the person using ML participates in a completely different sport B.
Everyone is running, but one person is riding a scooter.
However, art is not a finite zero-sum game[0]. Despite what formal
music education for kids sometimes tries to make it look like, itâs
not a competition, there is no global ranking and scoring system for
your skill. Many people have an intuitive understanding of that; try
going to a live jam to see people participating regardless of their
hypothetical skill level.
[0] As further reading on this topic more generally, I recommend
Finite and Infinite Games by James Carse.
mbonnet wrote 2 hours 3 min ago:
I agree. Art isn't a playing field!
filoeleven wrote 6 hours 51 min ago:
[1] Q: What about the people doing interesting things with AI in
their music? Some people are doing interesting things so isnât it
worth giving those ones a chance?
A: sorry maybe they are but unfortunately iâm part of the fuck off
ai music movement so count me out?
Q: But AI is just another way for people to express themselves
A: sorry that may or may not be the case but either way iâm part of
the fuck off ai music movement?
URI [1]: https://fuckoffaimusic.com/
spaceman_2020 wrote 6 hours 38 min ago:
I use AI as an amateur producer simply to get ideas
I would NEVER EVER consider using AI in something I actually
release to listeners
I don't care if its good or bad. If I'm making someone listen
something, it should've been touched by my hand - even if that
means turning a knob in a DAW
jappgar wrote 7 hours 59 min ago:
AI is the latest brick in the wall separating human beings from one
another.
Your argument is like "people have been killing each other for
centuries so when you think about it hydrogen bombs are not the
problem"
Redeemer06 wrote 8 hours 54 min ago:
Iâm really in the middle of what I should think about Gen AI, and
to be honest, it disturbs me.
Iâve been playing guitar since I was very young. I have good
skills, I can play hard songs, and I compose a lot on guitar, drums,
and bass. I love the process of creating, but Iâve always hated
using complicated applications just to get a clean recording or mess
around with adding MIDI tracks.
Because of that, I recently tried a famous AI solution. I shared one
of my really raw songs and used the AI to add violins and other
instruments that I don't know how to play. The final song was, to be
completely honest, really amazing.
But in the end, I didnât feel like it was mine. I had this strong
feeling of being an impostor. At the same time, it put me in this
great energy, it opened up my head, made me really creative, and gave
me a ton of new ideas of things to play on my guitar.
So like you said, there is this weird balance. As a musician, it
feels strange to outsource the creation, but as a tool for energy and
participation, it completely unlocked my creativity.
LocalExt wrote 4 hours 42 min ago:
I think AI is good as a 'muse' or getting idea (not just for
music)...Creating anything with AI is as a ghostwriting. You are
labeled as a creator, but you aren't.
"...but as a tool for energy and participation, it completely
unlocked my creativity." I totally agree...This could be the reason
of AI in any kind of art.
Slackwise wrote 5 hours 8 min ago:
If you asked an "agent" to make something for you, you yourself did
not create it. By definition. Whether it's AI or a person. You
contributed only a piece. It's no longer yours. This is why any
piece of art/music has everyone involved documented in credits. The
phonies in the industry have ghostwriters write songs for them,
like a majority of pop artists. Pop music is going to be even more
fake soon.
jstummbillig wrote 9 hours 19 min ago:
> Something went wrong with music and culture in recent times.
Participation became consumption.
I think closer to truth is: Participation became production.
More people are doing more things (including with instruments) but
often times in a digital setting, sometimes more isolated and
sometimes much more public (think: Twitch streams where chat is part
of the whole social experience in a way that was never true for TV or
other live events of that scale). More participatory online and more
individualized as consumption, while some older forms of face-to-face
amateur participation have become less socially normal or less
visible.
This says not so much about music or culture really; it seems fairly
aligned with where our lives and how we connect have moved more
broadly.
acaloiar wrote 10 hours 2 min ago:
To be honest, this comment reads to me like LLM output.
You have a history of comments that were clearly written by a human,
with character, but this comment stands out to me as an outlier. It
has that semi-neutral, slightly pontificating tone of an LLM that
just feels off in a way that's difficult to articulate.
I truly mean no offense. There's clearly a human behind this account.
Kaijo wrote 10 hours 20 min ago:
Authenticity (as Gidon Kremer once said), above all, is what is
genuinely felt, and the inner world of a dedicated listener who has
built up a relationship with their music over a lifetime is full of
genuine feeling. It _is_ participation, not mere consumption. Even if
the act of listening is a private one. Art forms need properly
attentive audiences.
I say this as a decent pianist who collaborates, performs, teaches,
records. And who messes around with AI with great fascination. Music
is so broad and diverse in the experiences it can provide and the
social functions it stands in relation to. Separate channels and
bubbles can be good, the signs of a tree of life diversifying. Your
lakeside vignette doesnât say anything about something wrong in
music and culture, itâs just a normal thing that happens whenever
people chill out by a lake throughout human history. Off-key singing
and dancing to salsa and reggaeton? I wouldnât be nervous about
joining in, Iâd be heading to the opposite side of the lake. And
thatâs good too â how personal music can be, that thatâs your
thing, not my thing.
watwut wrote 10 hours 44 min ago:
Imo where I am from, asking people not used to dance to dance in
public was always tall order.
And when you look at broader culture, people dancing seem to welcome
only small or bigger mockery, unless they dance really well.
madrox wrote 10 hours 47 min ago:
I was in a park today, and I watched a man play a saxaphone. Other
people had stopped to listen to him play.
It occurred to me that we appreciate this kind of public performance,
but we get annoyed if someone plays their boombox too loud in public.
I tend to agree with you about participation, but I feel like there
is a note unsung here.
csomar wrote 7 hours 1 min ago:
The way I see it. The saxophone player is annoying other people but
he is showing his skills to the public. I can tolerate that and let
it slip. On the other hand, the boombox jerk is playing music that
anyone can privately play. The park is a public space and you
should use headphones for that.
zimzam wrote 6 hours 45 min ago:
When I first moved to NYC I was enchanted and delighted by the
various people singing or playing music on the subway but over
time it became an annoyance - if I want to listen to music Iâll
play it myself.
Please donât force me to attend your concert by performing in
the subway car. I donât want to be your captive audience. Even
more so for people who donât use headphones.
darkwater wrote 7 hours 53 min ago:
> I tend to agree with you about participation, but I feel like
there is a note unsung here.
I think we value _effort_.
autoexec wrote 7 hours 25 min ago:
And skill. Using AI is basically zero effort and tends to produce
half-assed output. It's no wonder people are put off by it.
yard2010 wrote 10 hours 57 min ago:
On the other hand it allows teleportation. When I'm vibing in an
Infected Mushroom concert with a few hundred people I can feel as if
I'm on a beach stroll listening on my headphones, just the other
people can actually hear what I hear and being neurally activated the
same way I do.
When I'm on a beach stroll listening to Infected in my headphones I
can imagine many people at the beach would be dancing with me if they
shared my reality. It's just that reality became much more
fragmented. It has some drawbacks but I like to see the good parts in
it.
A hundred years ago, in order to feel that spiritual feeling of
listening to such music, you had to be in proximity to the artists,
which was really limiting. I'm grateful that I don't have to be
physically near Infected Mushroom to feel the way their music makes
me feel. It feels like time travel. Instead of moving yourself in
time, you move the sound waves, summon them from alternate universes,
right into your ears. This process is as magical as the whole
experience.
spiderfarmer wrote 11 hours 9 min ago:
People can do whatever they want, but they shouldn't expect an
audience.
footydude wrote 11 hours 32 min ago:
> But most people sat there watching, clearly wanting to take part
but scared. People have learned that creativity and participation are
not welcome.
In my experience, a decent proportion of people have always been
nervous about joining in. I'd wager that for many of the onlookers it
isn't driven by a creativity/participation thing, it's just a (pretty
normal) fear of embarrassing themselves. Scroll back 30 years and I
would undoubtedly be one of those awkward teenagers wanting to join
in but scared to do so out of fear of embarrassing myself.
That said...There probably is a reasonable argument to be made that
in the modern world the potential for everything you do to be filmed
and shared with others amplifies those fear more than ever.
ian_holt wrote 8 hours 57 min ago:
>In my experience, a decent proportion of people have always been
nervous about joining in. I'd wager that for many of the onlookers
it isn't driven by a creativity/participation thing, it's just a
(pretty normal) fear of embarrassing themselves. Scroll back 30
years and I would undoubtedly be one of those awkward teenagers
wanting to join in but scared to do so out of fear of embarrassing
myself.
You just described me 40 odd years ago :))
sokka_h2otribe wrote 11 hours 2 min ago:
30 years ago you weren't recorded and if you were your recording
didn't share across social media networks. This and awareness of it
I suspect drives a greater fear of embarrassment. Although you did
mention this, I wanted to emphasize it
footydude wrote 10 hours 1 min ago:
Absolutely, it's definitely worth emphasising.
codeflo wrote 11 hours 40 min ago:
> If AI music allows someone with less formal musical skills to feel
like they are joining in and making something, then maybe it has its
value.
An emphatic no. What we need to do is to stop comparing every hobby
performance, whether it's music or dancing, with the top 10 artists
in their field. We need people to learn, and try, and feel safe to be
visible and thus vulnerable in group situations without fear of being
mocked on social media for eternity. To achieve this, we need to stop
filming people, and we need a societal norm that treats a violation
of this ban on par with spitting someone in the face. We need to
celebrate amateurs that simply try to improve their raw, honest
skills.
What we don't need to do is to give everybody a Fisher Price toy with
a "make it sound awesome" button. We need human connections.
fullstop wrote 4 hours 11 min ago:
First of all, I 100% agree with you. With that in mind, do things
like AutoTune now feel more like creative tools when compared to
AI?
hennell wrote 4 hours 40 min ago:
> What we need to do is to stop comparing every hobby performance,
whether it's music or dancing, with the top 10 artists in their
field.
I feel like one of the less discussed issues of the hyper-connected
world is there are no small ponds to be the big fish in anymore.
Used to be you could be the best in your school, church, town even
city etc - even if you weren't that good. I remember being
astounded as a kid by a woman who juggled 5 tennis balls in a local
talent show. Now I can hop on youtube and watch people do way more
impressive feats it doesn't seem so unique. I suspect that 5 ball
routine might still be the greatest juggling I've seen in person,
but it still doesn't compare to random acts I've seen online.
But especially with the para-social relationships of social media
people feel connected even to big names now. You might not compare
the local young singer to Taylor Swift, but people will to the
tiktok singer they 'know' who liked their reply once.
It's gratifying and inspiring to be top of your class in something,
but in a world where it's always a class of millions, you know
you'll never reach the top.
MisterTea wrote 3 hours 58 min ago:
This is why I don't consume feeds, have social media accounts and
only use youtube to find specific things which is very rare for
me. I maybe watch 10 videos on YT per month at most, these days
mostly about machine shop and millwright operations.
Consuming all that content leaves you feeling small and isolated.
The talents you thought you had are nothing in the face of a
global pool of YT/TikTok/Insta superstars.
Currently, I share things with people I care about and who care
about me. The rest of the world can remain ignorant of me and I
of it. It's a good place to be.
hununu wrote 5 hours 55 min ago:
This is really hard these days because up and coming artists can
only do so nowadays via social media. In practical terms it means
musicians if they want to succeed they need to be good at music AND
self promotion through social media.
While theoretically access to everyone has been democratized when
compared to music labels of the past since everyone can put their
music on Spotify and social media, effectively that also means
social media is now a required skill besides musicianship.
It's harder than ever to create your own thing and stay on track. I
think this is why so many people are going bonkers with angine de
poitrine for example.
fabianholzer wrote 7 hours 51 min ago:
> What we don't need to do is to give everybody a Fisher Price toy
with a "make it sound awesome" button.
A sincere thank you for this metaphor.
microtonal wrote 8 hours 49 min ago:
I think it's part of the main character syndrome that social media
invoked in most of us. Everybody wants to tell the story of their
lives (but nobody really cares).
In the old days e.g. concerts were for enjoying the music together
with people you did and didn't know. The best concerts were those
where you were left sweaty from (slam)dancing with everyone in the
pit on music that was even better-performed than on CD. Showing the
experience afterwards was not really a thing that existed.
cluckindan wrote 6 hours 57 min ago:
Thing is, if you are not a person who blends into the mass of
ânormalâ, you need to tell the story of your life. You
already stick out like a sore thumb, and you need to explain to
others why.
In other words, you need to be in control of your own narrative,
or someone else will do it for you to fill the void. For example,
someone can use cold reading to deduce what others suspect and
fear and then paint you in that specific light, essentially
planting individually targeted nasty rumours about you while
increasing their rapport with others. That kind of rumours tend
to spread.
Eventually you become the outcast in your social circles and you
will be hard pressed to regain control of âyouâ in the eyes
of others.
Silamoth wrote 5 hours 31 min ago:
I promise most people donât care enough about you to spread
rumors that paint you in a nasty light. If someone is doing
that, you need to hang out with a new crowd and make some new
friends. But most people have too much going on to care about
you not being ânormalâ, if they even recognize your
existence.
lukan wrote 5 hours 35 min ago:
What? You absolutely don't need to tell the story of your life
to be in control of it. Constantly worrying what other people
will think of you, is how you loose control over your life, by
not doing anymore the things you enjoy.
But yes, there are very confirmists circles and some will
outcast you for not doing what everyone does - your choice for
trying to still belong there or find a better group.
But if you really do what you want and you do it with
confidence, you might find the conformists are suddenly coming
back and think you are cool.
gitgud wrote 8 hours 52 min ago:
> we need to stop filming people, and we need a societal norm that
treats a violation of this ban on par with spitting someone in the
face.
Agreed. Filming strangers in public is making everyone scared to
have fun trying anything new, as theyâre afraid of online
mockeryâ¦
kuerbel wrote 11 hours 5 min ago:
I can't play like Lang Lang. Only Lang Lang can play like Lang
Lang.
Just because some mfing AI can produce something that sounds like
Lang Lang does not make it equal: resemblance is not identity.
If I see a performance from Lang Lang, I don't just perceive the
sound, it is the expression of memory, discipline and attention.
Learning an instrument is more than attaining the skill of
producing the correct notes in the correct order. It shapes
attention, perspective, patience, discipline, sensitivity and so
much more. You can't replace that with effortless simulation. I
mean you could, but it's practically meaningless.
ben_w wrote 9 hours 39 min ago:
Sure, but because this argument works just as well whether
"effortless simulation" means "GenAI" or "a recording", I don't
know if you're objecting to one or the other or both.
viccis wrote 10 hours 48 min ago:
Every talented pianist in a major conservatory can play like Lang
Lang and are trying their best not to lmao
kuerbel wrote 10 hours 30 min ago:
Haha, I get it. Just took him as an example because, in my
experience, he is a famous pianist people recognise even if
they don't listen to that kind of music. Maybe Vladimir
Horowitz would be a better example.
ChickeNES wrote 9 hours 14 min ago:
I think the average person has no idea who either of those
people are. I think Liszt or Rachmaninov would be better
reference points.
FrontierProject wrote 4 hours 20 min ago:
As an average person, try Beethoven or Mozart.
nineteen999 wrote 2 hours 47 min ago:
Or Bach.
cluckindan wrote 6 hours 55 min ago:
The average person sees a synthesizer keyboard and thinks
âpianoâ.
tardedmeme wrote 7 hours 42 min ago:
URI [1]: https://xkcd.com/2501/
sevenzero wrote 11 hours 7 min ago:
>we need to stop filming people
As live music enjoyer and person that was commonly around safe
spaces in the techno scene I cant agree more. Fuck filming people.
kolektiv wrote 10 hours 3 min ago:
It's not even just music anymore. I love motor racing, but at the
last meeting I went to, sat in the stands at an iconic first
corner, tense with anticipation as the race started... Everyone
around me sat there holding their phones up, filming it. I
couldn't even see properly because of the forest of arms. People
don't just... experience... something now.
What's even more ridiculous is that this wasn't a small race - it
was filmed, and broadcast live. Their many, many camera angles
and drone shots and everything else are superb, much better than
your phone would be. It's on YouTube live and available years
later. Why do this? It made me so sad.
wiseowise wrote 7 hours 1 min ago:
And I can guarantee that most of them won't rewatch it.
csomar wrote 7 hours 5 min ago:
They are going to the event in order to broadcast to their
friends (or their profile feed) that they have gone to the
events. Once I understood this, it made sense why filming is
the most important thing for them in the event. They are not
there for the race.
Glad I left social media (if you don't count HN). It'll be
almost a decade soon since I deleted all my accounts.
dlahoda wrote 7 hours 34 min ago:
Phoning like that damages their brains for sure.
Hope there will be research.
sevenzero wrote 9 hours 51 min ago:
Its mostly about sharing it with friends and social media. I
dont know why these people feel the need to do this either. The
healthiest thing I did last year was quitting all (common)
social media platforms like Instagram, reddit and stuff like
that. Life is much slower and I dont feel the need to check my
phone every few minutes anymore (I barely posted anything
anyway).
I guess people are addicted to new notifications. They are
lonely and drawn to human interactions and attention through
social media because they are incapable of getting it through
real life.
mcv wrote 9 hours 8 min ago:
I guess people want to prove they were authentically there,
experiencing it themselves instead of watching it on TV. And
I sort of get it. When I'm on vacation, I like making my own
photos of everything, even if professional photographers have
already made hundreds of far better photos of it. Somehow the
ones I made mean more to me. And I don't even share those
photos on social media.
So on the one hand making your own photos and movies at
events is less authentic than just experiencing it, and yet
at the same time more authentic than relying on professionals
to film it for you.
microtonal wrote 8 hours 54 min ago:
When I'm on vacation, I like making my own photos of
everything, even if professional photographers have already
made hundreds of far better photos of it.
I have found when looking a photos from 20 years ago, I
skip most of the shots of only landscapes, buildings, etc.
The only interesting shots are shots with the people that I
travelled with in them. They bring back all the fond
memories, the things we did together, etc.
So I now, when making pictures of sceneries try to do it as
much with my fellow travelers in them.
As you say, others can make better pictures of the scenery.
bluGill wrote 4 hours 48 min ago:
I try to make memories. While you are correct that the
people are what make the vacation, the time getting
everyone to pose for a picture is wasting time they could
use to make memories. Even if you are getting an action
shot (and thus now posed) you could be out there playing
with them instead.
Nothing with with a few photos. However make sure you
are making memories not just getting photos of someone
else.
darkwater wrote 7 hours 54 min ago:
Totally! And as a kid of a family who mostly took
pictures of the monuments and landscapes, it hurts a lot
to just see 3-4 pictures with us in it out of 24 (or
25-26 if you were lucky).
I still take pictures of monuments, or the sky, or the
landscape nowadays with my phone, at least trying from
some unusual or less common perspective, but I do take a
lot of pictures of my family as well, especially in day
to day moments. And print them, from time to time, in
physical albums. It's just so different.
microtonal wrote 6 hours 5 min ago:
And as a kid of a family who mostly took pictures of
the monuments and landscapes, it hurts a lot to just
see 3-4 pictures with us in it out of 24 (or 25-26 if
you were lucky).
Same, we went to the US a lot when I was a teenager. I
have many good/fun memories of all the places we
visited together, people we met, etc. A few years ago I
went through some of the photos that my parents still
have with about the same ratio of pictures with us in
it. Random desert shots are even more frequent than
people shots :).
A_Venom_Roll wrote 12 hours 4 min ago:
I loved reading this, thanks for sharing your take
Ekaros wrote 13 hours 5 min ago:
I don't think this will do much against AI scripts. Which I feel are
pretty common. Formulaic scripts read to utmost monotonic voice and
boredom. Or simply just so good TTS I don't notice...
erickhill wrote 13 hours 7 min ago:
One of those HN titles I didn't even click before I upvoted, I'm
ashamed/not ashamed to admit.
karim79 wrote 13 hours 22 min ago:
"If a creator doesnât specify whether or not they used AI, but our
systems detect significant photorealistic AI use, we will now
automatically apply a label."
Welcome to the future and the brave new world I guess.
"detect". God help us all.
beeandapenguin wrote 13 hours 56 min ago:
Submitted some pretty harsh feedback about this back in Jan after my
old school technical father in law sent me a few AI generated
ânewsâ videos in a row about Trump and Venezuela. The AI label was
technically on all of the videos but 3 taps away hidden in the video
description, and not visible from the search results at all. So
thankful YouTube is doing something about this.
aorth wrote 14 hours 19 min ago:
Last year a non-technical friend sent me a YouTube video about a niche
history topic that we had been discussing. I was surprised because
there wasn't much information online. The video was clearly AI
generated, with that sheen on the pictures and that perfect voice. I
couldn't listen to it. I told my friend and he was adamant it was
original. Yikes...
conradfr wrote 10 hours 57 min ago:
This reminds me of this recent video by JHS pedals about a dire AI
video.
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/live/aQSOWFS6lzE
fnord77 wrote 13 hours 53 min ago:
some people seem to be completely unable to detect AI slop
mcv wrote 8 hours 55 min ago:
And that is a serious problem. That means those people are easy to
mislead, and can be made to believe anything if you just put it in
an AI video. I've seen people get upset or feel touched by what to
me were blatantly obvious AI generated videos. It's as if reality
just doesn't matter anymore. (See also the state of politics
lately.)
sixothree wrote 13 hours 23 min ago:
This biggest offender creeping into my feeds currently seems to be
long form history videos. I'll be 10 minutes into a 90 minute WWII
video and notice a completely incorrect pronunciation of something
and realize what is happening. They're certainly getting better at
fooling us. Especially when they speak slowly with a calm voice.
datsci_est_2015 wrote 6 hours 34 min ago:
Why donât you have preferred channels and content creators?
Things I would do before committing time to a random channel on a
topic Iâm interested in:
- Search my trusted communities and channels for alternative
recommendations on that topic
- Ask (create a post) for recommendations on a topic in my
trusted communities
- Request my preferred content creators create content on that
topic
- Search for sentiment regarding the new channel (accuracy,
trustworthiness)
Itâs kind of surprising to me that people donât curate
trusted communities / channels, like 3Brown1Blue, Kurzgesagt,
Veritasium, Hardcore History, etc.
sixothree wrote 4 hours 59 min ago:
This is easily one of the most insulting things I have seen.
Why would you assume I'm NOT subscribed to those channels? And
why would you assume I am incapable or haven't asked for
recommendations.
My friend. You are a grade A jerk. Get freaking bent.
datsci_est_2015 wrote 4 hours 22 min ago:
lol I didnât mean it at you personally, but Iâm just
surprised that these AI channels flourish, presumably because
people donât do any of the above 4 things that I listed.
Like 10 minutes into an AI video is wild to me - if only
because there are so many ways to avoid getting duped before
even clicking on a video.
simonklitj wrote 10 hours 43 min ago:
I mostly refrain from watching any
chii wrote 12 hours 17 min ago:
if the content is sufficiently good, why does it matter that it
is ai or not?
sixothree wrote 4 hours 53 min ago:
I honestly think your questions has more profound implications
than other responders seem to appreciate.
I think a correlating answer can be found in visual effects for
movies. And the answer "depends". When it's poorly done, the
scene feels off or unbelievable somehow. But when done well,
people have an enjoyable experience.
This same conversation existed when moving from practical
effects to digital. and in the end, audiences only cared about
quality.
Ajedi32 wrote 5 hours 11 min ago:
For pure entertainment maybe, but in the case of a history
video how do you know whether the history you're being
presented is accurate, or even has any basis in reality for
that matter?
vintermann wrote 10 hours 18 min ago:
I'm starting to suspect a lot of the people saying things like
this have a plan to get rich from AI content farming.
It's really not hard to understand what the problem is with AI
generated history vids.
cvoss wrote 12 hours 9 min ago:
It matters because of the inability to measure up front whether
the content is sufficiently good. AI's best skill is making
something look right and look good when it is, in fact, not
right. It does this all the time, as opposed to human-made
things, which are like that only for specific attempts at
deception.
datsci_est_2015 wrote 4 hours 17 min ago:
I see it as previously content could be categorized as:
- Clearly amateurish production, which should be met with
skepticism until proven otherwise
- Clearly professional production, with good reputation
(e.g. long-running with few controversies), meaning itâs
probably trustworthy
- Clearly professional, with poor reputation (e.g.
propaganda funding), meaning one should be skeptical while
consuming
But now the bar for âappearing professionalâ has changed,
and itâs not as easy to differentiate between trustworthy
and untrustworthy new sources.
faangguyindia wrote 14 hours 16 min ago:
plot twist, your friend actually created the video and was testing it
out on you.
jmkni wrote 12 hours 40 min ago:
What is this, Reggy?
OpenWaygate wrote 14 hours 33 min ago:
I'm wondering how they deal with AI-operated channels with non-AIG
videos? I ask this because I'm the author of
github.com/eat-pray-ai/yutu , which is a CLI/MCP for YouTube
wojciii wrote 14 hours 45 min ago:
Sure .. but I still can't blacklist creators based on keywords. It's
impossible to avoid certain creators which are like cancer. [1] This
shit pops up everywhere and is impossible to filter, as it is
translated into many languages.
URI [1]: https://m.youtube.com/VaniaManiaKids
shevy-java wrote 14 hours 55 min ago:
"We've heard consistently from our community that they value
transparency when it comes to generative AI content."
As if Google really cares about the opinion of people. They just
realised that AI is killing youtube - if you come to that conclusion,
then "labeling" the AI slop isn't going to solve the problem really.
Personally I already classify ALL AI-videos as slop-spam. I've also
noticed the "suggested" videos in the last few weeks, on youtube, to
really go down in quality a LOT. Google does not seem to understand how
severe this problem is.
xbmcuser wrote 14 hours 59 min ago:
Youtube has also started AI translating other languages written in
roman letters to english in chat for live streamers etc. Will be
interesting to see what happens when they start doing this with google
translate etc. English usually picks up words from other languages but
if everything gets translated it will be interesting to see what
happens. I am wondering if it will translate the slang that the current
generation uses that goes over my head a lot of the time.
Animats wrote 15 hours 40 min ago:
Probably good for about two more years, tops. Like Google's CAPTCHA.
binsquare wrote 16 hours 30 min ago:
I want to filter out ai generated videos
dopa42365 wrote 16 hours 52 min ago:
I want to believe it (and filter all that crap), but YT recently
removing the sort by new/date option because 99% of results being
useless AI slop doesn't inspire much trust.
ksd482 wrote 17 hours 20 min ago:
I am really sick of AI generated videos. I don't have anything against
AI videos per se but the fact that it's so easy to generate videos that
people are churning out really really bad quality videos out there.
There's another phenomenon I have been noticing more and more lately:
the frequent scene cuts. One scene lasts a mere 3 seconds before being
cut to a different scene. Whether it is entirely different scene, or a
different angle of the same thing or zoomed in/out.
I am not sure if this phenomenon is due to AI but I sense some
correlation there.
Marsymars wrote 12 hours 8 min ago:
> There's another phenomenon I have been noticing more and more
lately: the frequent scene cuts. One scene lasts a mere 3 seconds
before being cut to a different scene. Whether it is entirely
different scene, or a different angle of the same thing or zoomed
in/out.
I find this awful, but it's not a remotely new thing.
BrenBarn wrote 17 hours 43 min ago:
Using AI to detect AI is just another step in an endless arms race to
insanity.
RobKohr wrote 17 hours 49 min ago:
Everywhere (reddit, YouTube, Spotify) need to have a button to flag and
then flag as ai. Reddit really has it buried in multiple levels of
menus.
People are pretty darn good now at spotting ai.
An alternative is just use ai to look at the comments. Almost anything
with AI has comments complaining about it.
All of these sites need to deal with it because it does drive away
users.
tmoertel wrote 17 hours 45 min ago:
And, as always, flagging will be abused to downrank content that
people/bots/spammers/scummy-businesses/etc. would prefer you not to
see.
cubefox wrote 10 hours 50 min ago:
This already happens on Hacker News. People frequently flag
comments they strongly disagree with, rather than just downvoting
them. Despite the fact that the "flag" was originally introduced to
flag spam.
anigbrowl wrote 16 hours 29 min ago:
Just penalize people for false flagging, and penalize false
copyright claims while we're at it.
sonar_un wrote 10 hours 53 min ago:
Good luck with that. I work in classical music and we can't post
anything because it gets automatically flagged as copyrighted.
They couldn't fix it then and they certainly won't fix it now.
ilamont wrote 17 hours 58 min ago:
Gemini already labels images with a watermark even if you are using
plain text on an original photo or template.
Basically forces me to use image editing software for something that
could be greatly streamlined.
j45 wrote 18 hours 12 min ago:
Let the cat and mouse begin, since this will be a moving line.
drusepth wrote 18 hours 14 min ago:
Hmmm. I have a game on steam that has almost entirely AI-generated
graphics (and AI-generated animations/code that move them), but we pay
someone to do our promotional videos. Wonder if something like this
would tag the video as AI-generated or not.
anderber wrote 18 hours 23 min ago:
Just a heads up that Deezer has been tagging AI music already:
URI [1]: https://business.deezer.com/ai-detection/
mancerayder wrote 18 hours 28 min ago:
Rich Beato can finally take a breath! Musicians truly hate the AI
generated stuff, I guess in a way that only artists understand. I
think it's completely different from AI generated code, in the sense
that code is made by code, instead of code making music. People make
music.
hunter2_ wrote 17 hours 3 min ago:
You have a point, but as a musician and programmer, I'm far more fond
of AI generating things of a "no wrong answers" nature than things
that are ostensibly correct.
Music does have certain notions of correctness (e.g., [0]) but with a
very forgiving "know the rules, then break the rules" aspect. Code
has bugs or it doesn't, and it's probably easier to debug
human-written code (certainly easier to grok every line of a
human-written PR, IMHO).
The real problem is with the domains that aren't at the far ends of
this spectrum.
[0]
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpoint#Species_counterpo...
mullingitover wrote 18 hours 37 min ago:
There's probably a sizable niche market for an absolutist anti-AI video
hosting platform.
It doesn't need to be perfect, just needs one simple policy: Post AI
and you're banned for life, no appeals.
deaton wrote 5 hours 6 min ago:
As nice as this would be, one classic problem with the internet is
that enforcing a lifetime ban is basically impossible.
jefftk wrote 16 hours 38 min ago:
No appeals combines very poorly with any detector that sometimes has
false positives.
mullingitover wrote 4 hours 52 min ago:
Youâd think, but then TikTok has been notoriously ruthless with
their arbitrary unappealable bans and theyâre so successful it
became an issue of national security.
goshx wrote 18 hours 45 min ago:
This is much needed. Iâve had family members sending me videos about
what looked like news when in fact it was 100% AI.
There are photorealistic AI videos pretending to be an old man giving
life advice, or business advice, etc. and the disclosures were all the
way at the bottom of the video description, very hard to find.
emn13 wrote 9 hours 3 min ago:
Note that the uploader apparently still retains control over labeling
in most cases; uploaders that intentionally misrepresent AI-generated
content might not be discouraged by this. Whether youtube will (and
can) ban accounts that do that might determine in practice if this
matters or not.
imp0cat wrote 14 hours 0 min ago:
Oh so that explains the recent explosion of "old man gives life
advice" videos!
verisimi wrote 14 hours 17 min ago:
> in fact it was 100% AI
And you know that how?
And, how do you know news itself is not 100% ai? News corps may
simply fail to disclose that it was ai, be taken in, remove
watermarks, etc.
The fact is no one can say what one sees on a screen is a true
representation of reality. People are acting on a consensus feeling.
ramonga wrote 3 hours 35 min ago:
> the disclosures were all the way at the bottom of the video
description
verisimi wrote 3 hours 25 min ago:
Anyone can write anything, it doesn't make it true.
Eg, I can say: "ai wrote this comment".
Or I can say: "ai did not write this comment".
Looking at the comments alone does not tell you whether they were
or were not written by ai. Same for videos.
What is going on is that you are trusting the disclosure is
significant and real. So, when you see the disclosure you are
concluding something on the basis of TRUST. Same for the video
itself.
Seeing something on a screen does not make it a true
representation of reality. You do not know reality; you only
know that you saw a video. This applies to disclosure, video,
comments - anything on a screen.
noncoml wrote 18 hours 46 min ago:
Can we add the AI voice over videos as well please?
seunosewa wrote 18 hours 57 min ago:
AI has completely ruined animal short videos on Youtube. Videos of pets
behaving like humans are everywhere. At first they warm your heart,
then you realize that you've been tricked.
randycupertino wrote 18 hours 17 min ago:
The one I hate so much is fake ai-made movie trailers. I just got
fooled by a fake AI-generated for a new Tropic Thunder. There's
another one where they have ai-made Harrison Ford playing the old man
from Up, and one of the girls from FRIENDs playing the Golden Girls.
It's not art it's deceptive. It's so aggravating.
zfoong wrote 18 hours 57 min ago:
Will a hybrid of AI and man-made content be flagged as an AI-generated
video? I wonder what the threshold of the ratio of AI-generated content
has to be to be classified as one.
CM30 wrote 19 hours 2 min ago:
Honestly, I'm a bit concerned here. YouTube's automated tools aren't
the greatest at flagging content, and quite a few videos have been
mistakenly marked as for kids/infringing copyright/being in the shorts
format.
The fact this status can be removed by the uploader certainly helps fix
this issue, but then it feels like something any good conman will be
able to work their way around really easily. Make sure the video
doesn't blatantly use any tools that YouTube identifies as AI without
extra changes, then put the video unlisted or private for a bit to see
if it gets caught.
But something like this is needed. YouTube is currently overrun with AI
generated videos, and the current systems make it really easy to hide
that fact from 99.99% of viewers. It just needs to be done in such a
way that:
A: Innocent creators aren't wrongfully screwed over
B: Actual liars/scammers/grifters can't easily work around it.
1xn wrote 19 hours 5 min ago:
If they can pull this off correctly it would be amazing as a filter.
Only Human videos please!
_HMCB_ wrote 19 hours 6 min ago:
Hell yea!
LastTrain wrote 19 hours 8 min ago:
Good. The flood of AI slop has basically meant, when searching for
videos of a given topic, having to ignore videos created in the last
couple of years because a high percentage of them are garbage - a
situation that must be devastating for creators of new quality content.
whyenot wrote 19 hours 14 min ago:
Hopefully it will allow you to filter out AI slop. TikTok currently
does not do this, and itâs infuriating.
starkeeper wrote 19 hours 25 min ago:
Too bad they are not including the script writing, some people pass on
the visual but you can tell in 10 seconds or less it was written by AI
- or an AI voice that is reading AI written slop.
I would not mind either one if it was quality. But it's NOT this, it's
sloppy that!
throwaway85825 wrote 19 hours 49 min ago:
It would also help if there was a public way for viewers to indicate
slop, regardless of AI. Maybe a dislike button?
cubefox wrote 19 hours 54 min ago:
This is great. We don't want to drown in AI slop, and (perhaps more
importantly) we don't want people to think that real videos are AI
generated. Any signal which helps distinguishing the two is helpful,
even if it isn't perfect. This is also why I think it's good that
OpenAI is adopting Google's Synth ID watermark for images.
mvdtnz wrote 19 hours 55 min ago:
There are two things needed for this to be successful,
1. Detection of AI voiceover. The article makes several references to
photo realistic AI content but it's the voiceovers that are killing me.
2. Filtering options for viewers. It's not enough to be able to know if
a video is generated. I don't want to see them, ever.
wnmurphy wrote 19 hours 57 min ago:
I really want Spotify to follow. I feel cheated and deceived when I'm
enjoying some music, then I realize that there's no bio for the artist
and they released 7 albums in 2025. Users should be empowered to filter
out AI content if they choose.
Ekaros wrote 12 hours 50 min ago:
I hope same happens with software. Big unremovable warning if AI was
used in generating. Allows us to avoid software with very real
risks...
brikym wrote 18 hours 4 min ago:
I heard rumours they're the ones quietly funding some of the AI
music. Spotify probably see the most popular musicians flying around
in jets and want to redirect all that listening to their own slop.
platevoltage wrote 18 hours 30 min ago:
Spotify has every incentive to cut out the middleman (the musician).
This will never happen.
MarcellusDrum wrote 19 hours 41 min ago:
> I feel cheated and deceived
Why? Not trying to argue against AI labeling, but if you are enjoying
the music, why does it matter?
AlienRobot wrote 1 hour 56 min ago:
If people really thought it didn't matter, they would just label
their AI-generated stuff as "AI" and let consumers choose. To do
otherwise is to scam.
Marsymars wrote 12 hours 18 min ago:
> Why?
If nothing else, it feels like a the subscription price should be
less for an AI-music service.
quality_life wrote 14 hours 47 min ago:
I care about rewarding real musicians, actual human beings, with my
attention and, even love. AI slop gets in the way. Even "good" AI
copies and appropriates from real artists, their style, their voice
and even their history and relationship with their audience.
Agree with me or not, there should be a global filter that allows
me, the user of the service, to filter out AI generated content.
rimmontrieu wrote 15 hours 43 min ago:
People care a lot about the story and the human artists behind
their music, probably somewhat more than the music itself. When I
discover some great metal songs, I'll look up their info, the band,
the artists, their bio, everything related to the creation process
and their history.
dahrkael wrote 12 hours 30 min ago:
Normal people doesnt do that, thats just you and a couple others
in this thread. Normal people just listens to music and enjoys it
without a second thought
aalaee wrote 9 hours 4 min ago:
Citation needed. Hereâs an anecdote: all normal people I know
care and would rather exclude AI contents from any of their
feeds or recommendations.
RiverCrochet wrote 17 hours 39 min ago:
Connecting to the creator of a work of art provides meaning, which
makes the experience of art better and more interesting. It allows
you to experience worlds other than your own. I don't go into deep
dives of all music I listen to, but I do want the option for music
I like.
If there's no one on the other side, then it's just stimulation.
Which is fine if that's what you want. It's something like the
difference between watching an OnlyFans model versus an erotic
video your significant other made for you.
floxy wrote 17 hours 59 min ago:
I can see not wanting to participate in the road to creating
individualized heaven-banned digital silos for ourselves.
Nition wrote 18 hours 12 min ago:
I want to share a post from the Red Hand Files blog written by
musician Nick Cave, because I think he explains it more eloquently
than I could.
---
From: [1] In Yuval Noah Harariâs brilliant new book 21 Lessons
for the 21st Century, he writes that Artificial Intelligence, with
its limitless potential and connectedness, will ultimately render
many humans redundant in the work place. This sounds entirely
feasible. However, he goes on to say that AI will be able to write
better songs than humans can. He says, and excuse my simplistic
summation, that we listen to songs to make us feel certain things
and that in the future AI will simply be able to map the individual
mind and create songs tailored exclusively to our own particular
mental algorithms, that can make us feel, with far more intensity
and precision, whatever it is we want to feel. If we are feeling
sad and want to feel happy we simply listen to our bespoke AI happy
song and the job will be done.
But, I am not sure that this is all songs do. Of course, we go to
songs to make us feel something â happy, sad, sexy, homesick,
excited or whatever â but this is not all a song does. What a
great song makes us feel is a sense of awe. There is a reason for
this. A sense of awe is almost exclusively predicated on our
limitations as human beings. It is entirely to do with our audacity
as humans to reach beyond our potential.
It is perfectly conceivable that AI could produce a song as good as
Nirvanaâs Smells Like Teen Spirit, for example, and that it
ticked all the boxes required to make us feel what a song like that
should make us feel â in this case, excited and rebellious,
letâs say. It is also feasible that AI could produce a song that
makes us feel these same feelings, but more intensely than any
human songwriter could do.
But, I donât feel that when we listen to Smells Like Teen Spirit
it is only the song that we are listening to. It feels to me, that
what we are actually listening to is a withdrawn and alienated
young manâs journey out of the small American town of Aberdeen
â a young man who by any measure was a walking bundle of
dysfunction and human limitation â a young man who had the
temerity to howl his particular pain into a microphone and in doing
so, by way of the heavens, reach into the hearts of a generation.
We are also listening to Iggy Pop walk across his audienceâs
hands and smear himself in peanut butter whilst singing 1970. We
are listening to Beethoven compose the Ninth Symphony while almost
totally deaf. We are listening to Prince, that tiny cluster of
purple atoms, singing in the pouring rain at the Super Bowl and
blowing everyoneâs minds. We are listening to Nina Simone stuff
all her rage and disappointment into the most tender of love songs.
We are listening to Paganini continue to play his Stradivarius as
the strings snapped. We are listening to Jimi Hendrix kneel and set
fire to his own instrument.
What we are actually listening to is human limitation and the
audacity to transcend it. Artificial Intelligence, for all its
unlimited potential, simply doesnât have this capacity. How could
it? And this is the essence of transcendence. If we have limitless
potential then what is there to transcend? And therefore what is
the purpose of the imagination at all. Music has the ability to
touch the celestial sphere with the tips of its fingers and the awe
and wonder we feel is in the desperate temerity of the reach, not
just the outcome. Where is the transcendent splendour in unlimited
potential? So to answer your question, Peter, AI would have the
capacity to write a good song, but not a great one. It lacks the
nerve.
URI [1]: https://www.theredhandfiles.com/considering-human-imaginat...
LastTrain wrote 19 hours 0 min ago:
Are you being obtuse or can you really not understand this. Your
girlfriend writes you a letter once a week while sheâs away for
the summer. Misses you, loves you, canât stand being apart. You
find out later she paid a service to write the letters. Who cares,
the letters were nice right?
zuzululu wrote 19 hours 6 min ago:
Based on measured studies, people are not able to discern AI
generated music from real ones on average and to your point, I
agree, if you enjoy the output then it doesn't make sense to
suddenly change your initial opinion.
I do find that AI music tends to be too perfect and overtime using
Suno also gets old and I'm just listening to older releases
flextheruler wrote 2 hours 47 min ago:
Why would it not make sense to change your opinion on something
based on its origin? Supporting local artists and small
businesses is commonplace. How is this not just another extension
of that?
shepherdjerred wrote 19 hours 7 min ago:
For art, I would rather support humans over AI
zahlman wrote 20 hours 4 min ago:
> While we still require creators to manually disclose when they use
realistic AI, we want to make the process more seamless and reliable.
Starting in May 2026, weâre rolling out new internal signals to help
identify AI-generated content.
> If a creator doesnât specify whether or not they used AI, but our
systems detect significant photorealistic AI use, we will now
automatically apply a label.
I can't wait for their detection to repeatedly get this completely
wrong (as it does for many other things) and for innocent content
creators to complain on social media about how their appeals get
automatically dismissed by AI-powered bots.
golem14 wrote 19 hours 42 min ago:
I think most people wouldn't care either way. On HN, maybe 95% ppl
care; outside, not so much.
So the PR risk here is I think reasonably low.
jdubs1984 wrote 19 hours 47 min ago:
> While we still require creators to manually disclose when they use
realistic AI
Require? Your barely expected to do anything to upload a video to
YouTube and Iâm pretty sure any AI disclosures are hidden in an
optional accordion dialog.
zahlman wrote 19 hours 45 min ago:
I assume "require" is meant in the terms-of-service sense.
cubefox wrote 19 hours 53 min ago:
It's likely still a lot better than the current situation of not
having any detection.
coro_1 wrote 20 hours 12 min ago:
If they have a large preexisting AI-ERA subscriber base, which many do,
it must be tempting preserve the time by reading AI text for segments
of their content.
thr0waway001 wrote 20 hours 25 min ago:
GOOD!
Iâve been blacklisting AI slop channels on my feed. I donât want to
reward this content either views.
thr0waway001 wrote 20 hours 18 min ago:
with views
ArcaneMoose wrote 20 hours 28 min ago:
I'm curious where the line is.. several ambiguous but common scenarios:
- Occasional AI b-roll during explainer videos
- AI generated backing track (music)
- AI generated shots sprinkled in a short film
- Showing examples of AI video as an AI capability update or commentary
zulban wrote 6 hours 38 min ago:
It's about information, not one all encompassing yes or no. All of
those are good pieces of information to include in a disclosure.
doginasuit wrote 8 hours 40 min ago:
I watched a documentary recently that had an indicator in the top
right corner when the content was AI generated. I found it incredibly
helpful.
Every online video platform should let you label specific segments as
AI generated, even better if it is a requirement with validation
checks for certain kinds of content.
jagged-chisel wrote 8 hours 17 min ago:
Thatâs the creator doing that, right? Is YT going to analyze the
whole video and put a label on every frame?
doginasuit wrote 8 hours 11 min ago:
Yes, it seems like the creator applying the label is the most
scalable approach. But you could have the requirement and random
sampling with consequences if it isn't followed. You could also
sample based on video traffic and user reports.
It's a really valuable feature that I expect will eventually be
the gold standard, it was surprising how helpful it was. I think
a lot of creators will embrace it, it adds
credibility/authenticity. You aren't just labeling the AI
content, you are labeling the content that isn't generated by AI,
with a validation layer to back it up.
ArcaneMoose wrote 14 hours 50 min ago:
More scenarios:
- AI generated VFX on top of non-AI video
- AI upscaling of low res footage
- AI frame interpolation for synthetic slow-mo
- Modified / composited AI video
- Footage created by "Extend Scene" features in Premiere Pro and
others
- Word correction from tools like Descript
- AI relighting or colorization
- Reaction video to a video containing AI-generated content
And in general, what amount of combination of any of these
applications constitutes as "AI generated"? If I have a 30 minute
video with a 3 second AI generated clip, do I get the same label as
full-blown AI slop video?
tliltocatl wrote 6 hours 18 min ago:
> - AI upscaling of low res footage
I'd say this is far more problematic than plain slop.
autoexec wrote 7 hours 16 min ago:
All of them in any amount and yes, your specific 3 seconds should
be labeled as being AI generated in your video (or description) and
your entire video should be labeled as made using AI by youtube.
A 30 minute speech by a president where I use AI to change 3
seconds in order to make that person say something they never did
should also get the label. The label shouldn't be about how much AI
was used, but that it was used at all.
jefftk wrote 16 hours 37 min ago:
Deepfakes in VFX is another borderline one.
harimau777 wrote 18 hours 10 min ago:
I'd say that if anything AI generated ends up in the final product
then it should be labeled as AI made. So using AI as a prototyping
tool would be fine but using it either to generate the end product
itself or using it to generate a script would require tagging.
mvdtnz wrote 19 hours 58 min ago:
Other than your last bullet point I don't see anything ambiguous.
It's a very clear line. I do not want to see an explainer video with
AI generated content, end of story.
ArcaneMoose wrote 18 hours 58 min ago:
I absolutely hate those full-blown AI 'explainers' that just have
AI voiceover and a bunch of auto-placed b-roll. I don't want to see
them. But I don't think that falls in the same bucket as a creative
short film with some AI-generated SFX or someone doing a tutorial
with an AI-generated lofi track in the background.
dmix wrote 20 hours 15 min ago:
Plenty of big artists like Kanye use AI to experiment with ideas
before releasing the full studio recordings. Thatâs going to become
more common. Just like how developers use LLMs to make a POC to test
new ideas before putting the hard work into making it real.
tayo42 wrote 19 hours 32 min ago:
People still admit to listening to Kanye since he started talking
about his love of Hitler?
terio wrote 19 hours 23 min ago:
People are still buying Teslas?
ymsodev wrote 20 hours 33 min ago:
Anyone remember GAN? With enough iterations with a discriminator, we're
gonna see more AI generated videos that are harder and harder to
distinguish from real ones. What then?
Funny enough, this also seems to directly contrast Google's effort
towards generating videos with better quality.
flenserboy wrote 20 hours 38 min ago:
the ability to simply exclude such content from recommendations &
search results would be welcome.
youarenotyu wrote 20 hours 39 min ago:
do they detect ai-generated ads?
deadbabe wrote 20 hours 43 min ago:
Wouldnât it be easier to just label AI-free videos?
gblargg wrote 20 hours 47 min ago:
They need to have a way to report AI videos not labeled as such, AND a
checkbox to filter out AI videos on the home page and in search
results. Not holding my breath for either.
wenbin wrote 20 hours 55 min ago:
Maybe google web search should automatically label ai-generated
articles
filoeleven wrote 5 hours 54 min ago:
What google web search? It's gonna be all slop from here on out,
according to Google.
gosub100 wrote 20 hours 58 min ago:
good first step.
better next step: allow us to block them
even better next step: charge them egress, storage, compute, and energy
fees for uploading them.
codegeek wrote 21 hours 10 min ago:
I wish all platforms did this specially reddit, twitter etc. I don't
use AI to write comments on any platform and always wondering if I am
replying to an AI comment.
zuzululu wrote 19 hours 8 min ago:
I think that is significantly harder to solve for without false
positives ruining UX.
I don't think its bad to use AI assistance but what people clearly
hate is just copy and paste.
Also its possible to generate extremely natural and casual sounding
replies and comments now and you've probably interacted with several
AI bots on HN already.
dmix wrote 20 hours 14 min ago:
Twitter has community notes which fills the role pretty well. If an
AI gen tweet goes viral it will get noted pretty fast
mattgreenrocks wrote 21 hours 7 min ago:
Makes it much easier to use the Internet less. They're poisoning the
ground water of the well, effectively.
bloomca wrote 20 hours 37 min ago:
I thought about "poisoning" in this context as well. Even if there
is not that much AI, if there is enough that you start second
guessing every other comment, I start thinking what am I doing
there.
ellrob88 wrote 21 hours 14 min ago:
Curious to see if this will apply to music. YouTube seems to be filled
with AI music these days - just do a search for "focus music" or the
like, and you'll see creators pushing new 1-hr tracks every few days
with no mention of where the music came from or the fact it is AI
generated. People praising it in the comments seem none the wiser (or
perhaps they're also bots).
littlecranky67 wrote 4 hours 26 min ago:
I personally like an AI cover version of Nirvana's "In bloom" song in
country style [0]. Just because it is AI generated doesn't mean that
I enjoy it less. Labelling videos as AI is fair and I welcome
youtubes changes in that regard nonetheless.
[0]:
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNImbw1TABo
mattacular wrote 37 min ago:
For one made by a real band check out Sturgill Simpson's cover
bandrami wrote 11 hours 4 min ago:
Music may be a special case because generative/algorithmic music has
been a thing for much longer than AI (in the 2020s sense) has
existed. So it's more a question of how/whether it gets integrated
into an existing generative market than it being a new category.
verst wrote 11 hours 32 min ago:
I can easily create a 1 hour track in Ableton and have some minor
variations every say 48 measures. It's basically just copy paste with
some parameter variation which can be scripted.
So not everything like that is necessarily AI generated!
bilekas wrote 11 hours 14 min ago:
> I can easily create a 1 hour track in Ableton and have some minor
variations every say 48 measures. It's basically just copy paste
with some parameter variation which can be scripted.
What's the difference with AI doing it instead of your script ?
anshorei wrote 8 hours 6 min ago:
Is human-scripted art (e.g. [1] ) art? Is music programmed to
play on an orchestrion art? Is the music produced using a modular
synth setup art?
If your answer to any of these questions is "yes", and your
answer to "can AI create art" is no, then there is a difference
between AI doing it and a script.
That said the discussion around "human" art and "AI" art often
lacks nuance, and I believe there's lots of space to explore art
that uses AI. Humans produce a lot of crappy art, this crappy art
requires humans to invest time and effort. With AI it is possible
for humans to produce lots of crappy art without investing time
and effort, so an deluge of crappy AI art follows.
If I use AI to strip backgrounds instead of traditional
greenscreen methods, is the end result "crappy AI art"? I'd hope
no one sets those standards. I'd hope my videos would be judged
as "crappy human art" since I still did the camera work the
acting and the editing. If I use AI for visual effects in my
video because I don't have visual effect training and don't have
money to hire someone with experience (I don't make money from my
occasional fun video projects), does that make it "crappy AI
art"? I don't believe so. But somewhere between there and the
content farm AI slop filling the Youtube servers there is a point
where it becomes "crappy AI art" and I can't tell you where that
point is because I'm still trying to figure it out.
URI [1]: https://nannou.cc/
bilekas wrote 6 hours 39 min ago:
Yeah, you make some good points, and it's an interesting
question. There's far more nuance I guess that I considered, I
guess what's a bit disheartening about the amount of generated
music in this case is that it does make it harder for those who
create and put really a lot of effort into their work to find
some traction. Then again they said Spotify would ruin the
music industry also, and to some degree it has only benefited a
minority of artists.
I guess either way we will see. Art is only appreciated by
those who appreciate it so who am I to judge.
HeartStrings wrote 12 hours 15 min ago:
Add âbefore 2024â to searches.
enough music was made already, we donât need more.
HeartStrings wrote 12 hours 16 min ago:
Easy to solve: just label ALL music uploads after 2024 as AI.
"B-b-b-but what if I create genuine woââ
You wonât.
NEXT
onion2k wrote 12 hours 44 min ago:
Curious to see if this will apply to music.
I imagine it'll apply to anything with a SynthID watermark.
URI [1]: https://deepmind.google/models/synthid/
delis-thumbs-7e wrote 13 hours 38 min ago:
I was at the gym the other day with my bf and there was some godawful
lame crap on the playlist. I asked my bf if it was AI generated in
his opinion, he laughed and said it was Harry Stylesâ¦
Most of pop music had driven any creative energy it ever had to the
ground already in the 90âs and 00âs and listening music from past
10-15 years or so, even if itâs not AI -generated, it might as well
be. In a way AI just brings this progression into its logical
conclusion. Most people simply donât care about art and music, and
it doesnât matter who or what made it and if it even sounds likeâ¦
anything.
People do not want to communicate across oceans, cultures, and
centuries the lived experience of what it is to be human, hear
stories what it was, say, live as a 28-year-old (possibly gay)
composer with syphilis in early 19th century vienna, or standing on
the street corner slinging crack in 80âs Brooklyn. They want to
stay in their own bubble bed sherts over their heads smelling their
own farts. I guess thatâs just fine. Just fine. Amazing.
emodendroket wrote 13 hours 46 min ago:
I mean the whole point of music like that is you're not really
listening to it and it's kind of on/blocking out noise, right? It's
hard to think of a situation where completely AI-generated music
would be more competitive or less objectionable.
shevy-java wrote 14 hours 54 min ago:
> People praising it in the comments seem none the wiser (or perhaps
they're also bots).
I am pretty certain most comments made on youtube these days come
from bots. Google does not understand that this is a problem - no
real human wants to "interact" with bots or AI slop. They kind of
cannibalize youtube here (not that the youtube comments system was
great, but you can find real humans making comments in the past, now
you can not distinguish between bot spam and real humans usually,
though most short comments are made by bots).
Jach wrote 15 hours 7 min ago:
I wonder about false-positives too, or just disagreements with what
is stated vs. "detected". In what I guess is a reaction to the huge
amount of AI music, I notice a lot of other music gets posted with
titles or tags saying in extent "made without AI". Yet when I listen
to it, at least half the time I suspect AI was used, and they are
just lying to get increased reach from the AI-hater crowd...
userbinator wrote 16 hours 39 min ago:
That's actually how I fell down the rabbithole --- found these long
mixes and started listening, enjoyed what I heard, then tried to find
out more about the author and realised it was AI-generated.
People praising it in the comments seem none the wiser (or perhaps
they're also bots).
I admit to leaving praise on some of them, because they do sound
really good, much better than what I thought AI music could be.
Someone is creating music I like, and how they do it doesn't really
matter; and in some ways, this makes it much easier to "separate the
art from the artist".
littlecranky67 wrote 4 hours 7 min ago:
One of my favorite dialogues from Westworld [0] is such a perfect
fit for the whole creative AI industry discussion:
Are you real?
- If you can't tell, does it matter?
[0]:
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaahx4hMxmw
14 wrote 16 hours 1 min ago:
It also seems that there is a big percentage of people who are
completely against AI music for a multitude of reasons. Even if
they liked the sound they would still hate it if it was AI
generated.
But to me this seems silly. Yes I want real artists to make music
and be able to make a living not some faceless company spitting out
endless music until something works. However at the end of the day
if something sounds good then one should enjoy it not refuse to
accept it simply because it is AI.
Because how far does their stance against AI go? They won't accept
music. What about if AI created a cure that could save their child?
Or what if AI could could sort through a massive backlog of
evidence in unsolved murders and other violent crimes giving new
leads previously missed?
I am just curious if some people will simply be against it no
matter what the use is.
As for myself I think it has it's uses but also think it comes at a
heavy price as in massive power and water consumption and other
issues it comes with. Anyways
filoeleven wrote 6 hours 25 min ago:
Q: But donât you think that some AI music can be good enough to
listen to anyway?
A: sorry iâd love to deeply consider this topic with you but
unfortunately iâm part of the fuck off ai music movement so i
wonât?
URI [1]: https://fuckoffaimusic.com/
toraway wrote 9 hours 6 min ago:
> Because how far does their stance against AI go? They won't
accept music. What about if AI created a cure that could save
their child?
The problem with this type of argument employing hyperbole ad
absurdum to demonstrate irrationality is that itâs self
negating.
If AI cured cancer then by definition it would no longer be the
technology thatâs primary use case is churning out various
forms of derivative slop. And so the balance between its value vs
the economic/social/environmental costs would immediately and
fundamentally change.
Losing my job, spending 3x as much to replace my PC while my
favorite websites devolve into a cesspool of spam might not feel
worth it just because I can now vibe code a todo app in 2 minutes
while listening to a 600 hour playlist of personalized elevator
music.
But if it cured my dadâs cancer and my momâs Parkinsonâs?
Well, thatâs a different storyâ¦
abenga wrote 15 hours 8 min ago:
It's not created any cure or solved crime though. The times it's
been applied to those problems, it's either regurgitated stuff
that's already in the data or led to the arrest of innocent
people.
Also, re: music, if I was fine with listening to AI music, why
would I listen to the output of someone else's prompt instead of
creating my own?
dahrkael wrote 12 hours 40 min ago:
because the other people may write better prompts than you
userbinator wrote 12 hours 46 min ago:
why would I listen to the output of someone else's prompt
instead of creating my own?
Because you might not be as good as someone else in doing it,
just like it was before AI. "Why would I listen to the output
of someone else's piano instead of playing it on my own?"
stingraycharles wrote 16 hours 10 min ago:
Yeah, I had the same experience, and it makes sense for companies
like Spotify. I do hope that this doesnât hinder âinnovationâ
in music (eg people being creative and introducing new types of
music), because as usual with AI, itâs just really good at
imitation, not necessarily creating new things.
To be honest, as long as the music is to my liking, I donât
really care all that much.
rapnie wrote 18 hours 15 min ago:
There are completely fake bands, who are 'on tour', 'giving
interviews', cranking out albums. Like "Shunned at a Funeral" [0] for
instance, an AI Christian rock band. Mentioning nowhere that it is
all fake.
Here is a band member of the real band "Wings of Pegasus" who takes a
closer look at these shenanigans in "Are you sure your favourite band
is real?" [1] [0] [1]
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/@ShunnedataFuneral
URI [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKOtpdDzwyA
cillian64 wrote 11 hours 49 min ago:
You could say almost the same about Gorillaz except for the AI
part.
CM30 wrote 18 hours 51 min ago:
Yeah this is why I'm sceptical of just about any video game covers or
remixes posted in the last year or two. There's just a flood of
blatantly AI generated content in this niche, with many of the
channels involved pumping out dozens of videos a day.
They'll use be pretty sneaky about hiding that fact (they'll like any
comments that say how awesome it is and how much work was involved
while hiding those calling it out as AI, and stick any disclaimer in
another language in the description if at all), and it's completely
overshadowing legitimate creators in the same space.
NuclearPM wrote 19 hours 3 min ago:
There is a third option. We donât care how the music was made.
shagie wrote 16 hours 59 min ago:
There's certainly a bit of that. Years ago, I had various
generative musicish on my phone that I'd listen to (e.g. [1] [2] ).
There are also some soundtracks that are ok to listen to on repeat
(though once you start recognizing what's next, then they become
less useful because you can start listening to them - sim city [3]
and eve online - looking now I see people have remixed that to 8h
long tracks). I've also supported My Noise ( [4] [5] ) and have
some 1h long tracks that I can put on repeat (love the white noise
rain, but gotta give a callout to 88 keys with some slider
adjustments to get it "right" for what I want - [4]
/NoiseMachines/acousticPianoSoundscapeGen... most often equal parts
brown, red, orange and light purple).
Music for Airports is ok ( [7] [8] ... but there are parts in there
that I recognize in the loop that bring me out of it being
background and into something I'm listening to).
But yea... I want a soundscape and it doesn't bother me if it was
something that was generative in 2018, or in 2026... or loops of
recorded sound... I want something that isn't silence and that I
can not listen to for four to eight hours... bonus if its enough
"noise" that it doesn't even get picked up after noise suppression
in a Teams call.
Space Banjo is great ( [9] be it [10] or [11] ) ... but I like to
listen to that when I can listen to it more.
There's also things like [12] (and in this realm, I get picky [13]
is pretty good, but some of it hits higher notes ... [14] is pretty
good too).
Again, this is more about wanting sound rather than music.
URI [1]: https://endel.io
URI [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endel_(app)
URI [3]: https://youtu.be/j6mQc-9vCuE
URI [4]: https://mynoise.net
URI [5]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32366075
URI [6]: https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachines/acousticPianoSoundscapeG...
URI [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambient_1:_Music_for_Airport...
URI [8]: https://youtu.be/vNwYtllyt3Q
URI [9]: https://spacebanjo.com
URI [10]: https://youtu.be/CLnHStt4mbs
URI [11]: https://youtu.be/ygYfJSTc_qQ
URI [12]: https://youtu.be/_egA9RZrD5k
URI [13]: https://www.youtube.com/@resomat6474
URI [14]: https://www.youtube.com/@TheJapaneseTown-jt6fy
u_fucking_dork wrote 18 hours 45 min ago:
Yeah I listen to random ambient music, probably all AI, as
background noise when Iâm working or reading
andai wrote 19 hours 36 min ago:
You can tell when a song is not AI generated these days because
people put "no AI" in the title.
spullara wrote 19 hours 44 min ago:
A friend of mine who is a very non-technical dermatologist listens
exclusively to Suno songs she made. All in genres and styles of songs
from her era, the 80s and 90s. Who else is going to make new songs
for her? New music almost always targets young people.
mr-wendel wrote 2 hours 47 min ago:
Gotta plug nightride.fm as an online station that is fully fueled
by artist-submitted, non-AI music. It's all 80s/synth-inspired with
one main channel, but there are more niche channels (e.g. chillwave
is a popular one) too. The site itself is also a real pleasure to
stumble upon.
I'm not affiliated with it, nor am I against AI-generated music.
Just a huge fan who admires the hard work people pour into making
the scene work.
drngdds wrote 5 hours 58 min ago:
>Who else is going to make new songs for her?
Lots of artists! They are not even remotely hard to find. They are
literally a google search away. Typing stuff into Suno because you
can't be bothered to search "new artists that sound 90s" is crazy
wiseowise wrote 6 hours 58 min ago:
> All in genres and styles of songs from her era, the 80s and 90s.
Who else is going to make new songs for her?
How much music do you even need? Is she listening 24/7?
jongjong wrote 7 hours 47 min ago:
I'm in a similar boat. I don't like modern music. I was never a big
music fan TBH though I did like a few really good pieces from my
day. That said I never cared much for lyrics because I didn't find
them relatable. I'm only interested in the tune... I like lyrics
but only for the audio properties of the words; literally, I like
the sound of human vocal chords.
The way I use Suno is sometimes I play Ukulele and discover a tune
I like; I record it and generate a song from it.
I didn't take any music lessons. I'm 100% self-taught so my
recordings are a little rough but the melody comes through and Suno
polishes it up nicely and adds lyrics based on a topic I've been
thinking about.
I find both the creation and listening aspects relaxing and
therapeutic. I'm not a musician so Suno is the only way I could
actually produce and finish a song. It's very clearly my melodies,
my songs but it's enjoyable to hear them as a finished product.
There is definitely an element of surprise, the lyrics are
sometimes quite insightful and clever too and I can actually start
appreciating the poetic aspect of music in a way which eluded me
before.
I suspect that by the time most musicians finish refining and
producing their own songs, without AI, they're probably tired of
hearing it. Suno avoids that. It's a truly novel thing to be both a
producer and consumer of your own music. Perfect for an introvert
like me who can't relate to anyone except himself.
It's nice to see that some other people also like my pieces though
I'm not trying to make a career out of it.
jeltz wrote 11 hours 0 min ago:
Plenty of people? There are gigs every week in my city by bands who
make music in 80s and 90s genres and many of them still make new
music, some of it really good. And you can usually find it at both
Bandcamp and Spotify.
bilekas wrote 11 hours 12 min ago:
> New music almost always targets young people.
Hard disagree, there is just music people make because it's what
they want to make, if all you're looking at is the top 10/pop radio
music, yes it will be tailored for the largest market but by no
means is there a conspiracy to only accomodate the 'young people'.
clockdiv wrote 12 hours 39 min ago:
I wonder about the social aspect. People growing up with listening
exclusively to their own AI-generated music will never dance
together and scream to the same old songs, even if it just became
âbad tasteâ. Its such a huge part of our culture that they will
just miss.
Same goes of course to all other parts of arts and culture. A good
start to read is â The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproductionâ by Walter Benjamin.
pattle wrote 12 hours 50 min ago:
This is interesting. I think AI music will be massive in a few
years.
It makes sense to listen to music made just for you by a model that
knows you. You're bound to feel more emotion from that than trying
to relate to something that wasn't written about you
wiseowise wrote 6 hours 29 min ago:
> I think AI music will be massive in a few years.
Massive like Temu/AliExpress products massive.
listenallyall wrote 11 hours 37 min ago:
I think its the exact opposite. One of the best features of art,
in any form, is that it offers different perspectives,
viewpoints, ideas. Think of how many people changed something
major in their life due to a song, a movie, a photograph. Now
think of how little would happen if AI just repeated back what
"it knows" you already like. Your entire life would just be a
derivative of things you liked as a 6-year old. Nothing new,
nothing challenging, nothing fresh.
poink wrote 13 hours 4 min ago:
The 80s and 90s were pretty much the golden age of music production
in terms of breadth and sheer volume.
This is the distilled essence of a âfirst world problem.â
paul7986 wrote 13 hours 30 min ago:
Same as i almost only listen to my own AI Slop yet Ive wrote
melodies/lyrics since a kid. Ive always recorded my guitar or
keyboard along with my vocal (terrible singer here) track then
mixed it in GarageBand and exported each song as an MP3. Now in
2025/2026 I feed my MP3s of my songs to Suno and they sound pro.
Also, they have a ton more meaning to me then anyone elses songs.
I dont care if others listen to my slop its mine and again more
meaningful then all others music.
AI Music is changing music habits ...your friend and myself arent
the only ones [1] .
Give it ten years or so and i bet the Taylor Swifts type acts and
the big music industry machine wont be as celebrated.
URI [1]: https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/937059...
CalRobert wrote 13 hours 41 min ago:
The Midnight are a pretty fun modern eighties band!
me551ah wrote 13 hours 56 min ago:
Even for making new music Suno is a godsend. My workflow has
changed from making a whole track to just creating some nice loops
with my favorite VSTs and asking Suno the rest. I get a song in the
exact BPM and style that I wanted, while saving me a ton of time.
cameronh90 wrote 14 hours 29 min ago:
I have no issue with individuals choosing to listen to generative
AI. I even occasionally listen to it myself when Iâm deep working
and just need to occupy that part of my brain (having previously
listened to algorithmically generated music or those endless
copyright free trance mixes for the same purpose). But I donât
like how itâs flooding discovery platforms to the point that it
gets impossible to wade through slop and find actual bands that I
could see in person.
Itâs like when Etsy turned into a Made in China marketplace. MIC
is fine, but if Iâm going to Etsy itâs because I wanted
something else.
HDBaseT wrote 17 hours 29 min ago:
There is plenty of artists making music analogous to 80's and 90's
classics. Not to mention millions of 80's and 90's songs she's
never heard.
I constantly find myself discovering new 90s Boombap, Hip Hop beats
and tracks from underground artists. Unfortunately a ton of these
aren't on Spotify, although they exist on YouTube in near endless
capacity.
A lot of my favorite songs of all time aren't great just because
they sound nice, but they are great because they have immense
meaning. Alice in Chains is one of the all time greatest bands and
their lyrical messaging means so much, with the passing of Layne
from a drug overdose the songs have a raw, visceral feeling. Many
of their songs are explaining the struggle, they are deeply
personal. That is lost with AI Music.
galkk wrote 12 hours 49 min ago:
I watch bunch of Russian speaking Wh40k lore channels, and the
authors experimented with ai music. Now they finish many of their
videos with ai banger, based on lore. Mostly rock, but they
experimented with different styles. And I like it. â80/90sâ
generated music is way too easy target. Niche topics (or just
topical music) is much harder to get in nice amounts.
There are several channels with pure ai Wh40k music. Some Star
Wars creators are doing similar stuff.
Iâm actively resisting desire to dump bunch of YouTube links,
but if you want to hear what many people already vetted great,
Iâm happy to share.
galkk wrote 12 hours 59 min ago:
What is the problem if somebody doesnât seek the deep meaning
or anything and enjoys whatever she enjoys? Plenty of artists
plain suck and discovery is a problem that requires time and
effort. If somebody makes decision to like what they like (and
made, to some extent) thatâs their choice.
sph wrote 10 hours 28 min ago:
> What is the problem if somebody doesnât seek the deep
meaning or anything and enjoys whatever she enjoys?
Some people yearn for the slop.
galkk wrote 10 hours 23 min ago:
Me an intellectual is not like the other girls.
viccis wrote 10 hours 44 min ago:
>What is the problem if somebody doesnât seek the deep
meaning or anything and enjoys whatever she enjoys
If you need it to be explained to you why it's a tragedy that a
person's curiosity can atrophy (or fail to develop) to the
extent that she can't seek meaning in what she engages with
every day for enjoyment, then you might not have met the
minimum requirements for this conversation.
galkk wrote 10 hours 22 min ago:
Nah, youâre not the person who decides that. Denied.
kode-targz wrote 6 hours 36 min ago:
But they're right.
Cthulhu_ wrote 11 hours 53 min ago:
Yeah people seem to forget that before AI music, there was
already a huge amount of "slop" music out there - background
music, muzak, mood music. Hell, Spotify was put in the
spotlight not that long ago for commissioning music to mix into
their own most popular mixes (the casual background listening
ones), so that they own the rights themselves and don't need to
pay artists as much. A lot of music is for mass consumption /
inactive listening, and honestly I don't think it makes much of
a difference whether it's AI generated or churned out by a WFH
producer. When it comes to whether I want to listen to it
anyway, not so much whether said producer gets paid.
watwut wrote 7 hours 21 min ago:
None of that is what I would call slop music. All of that is
real music for real people with real use case.
galkk wrote 11 hours 28 min ago:
Also the almost industrial score music machines: trailer
music, like two steps from hell, even Zimmer. Those are also
can be considered as slop, even worse - highly formulaic,
almost standard (YouTube âheroic music chord
progressionâ). And those were written by humans
latexr wrote 11 hours 2 min ago:
Iâm not going to devalue your opinionsâmusic is mostly
a matter of tasteâbut you and your parent comment are
stretching the term âslopâ, like when a software user
misuses âbugâ to mean âsomething which doesnât work
like I want, despite it working exactly as designed for
fifteen yearsâ.
âSlopâ is specifically about AI content lacking in
effort, quality, meaning. You may not like Zimmer, but
saying it lacks in those areas seems a tad too much.
âFormulaicâ isnât an indicator of slop either, most
stories are formulaic following a variation of the heroâs
journey. Itâs especially not problematic when youâre
someone like Zimmer who invents or popularises the formula.
galkk wrote 10 hours 36 min ago:
The thing is that there is already enough ai content that
is not lacking in effort, quality, meaning too.
I clearly see talented author who just didnât had chops
or resources previously to realize his vision, and now he
can and I can enjoy it.
At the same time I probably feel and define slop slightly
differently, for myself.
In my birth city there was a street that was closed every
weekend for art sellings. You walk about 1km (or less),
and there are tables with sculpitures, paintings, crafts
etc. In the beginning itâs fun, but after some time
(and especially after several visits) you see how
repetitive and formulaic it is. Somebody chooses kittens
and draws 100s of things with them, somebody chooses
nature etc etc etc. I didnât even know the word slop
then, but looking back - it was it.
After watching Bob Ross (and I love the guy) itâs clear
that many âcreatorsâ were producing slop that is
technically similar to what Bob Ross was teaching. Did
Bob Ross produced slop? No. Do people who just reuse same
approach over and over again (here is how we will paint
the tree by using this then than brush) produce slop? In
my book - yes. And itâs fine, if they or somebody else
enjoy it. I donât judge them and I donât judge people
who use and enjoy ai.
For me artâs purpose is to invoke some emotion in
person, experiencing the art. The way how art is produced
is secondary.
You can have buckethead who does music, and you can have
someone (even highly technical, with great timing,
control, mechanical chops) who âproduces songâ while
sitting on a toilet and an âinstrumental albumâ in a
day, by running pentatonic scale all over again. And this
is the slop for me. And it has nothing to do with ai.
1718627440 wrote 10 hours 50 min ago:
> Formulaic
Also formulaic art isn't necessarily bad, because human
appreciation does follow some patterns.
galkk wrote 10 hours 14 min ago:
Agree. I didnât say bad. I said that the adjectives
that people use to describe ai slop are as applicable
to human creations as to ai.
There could be lazy, uninspired but technically
competent as ai art (my pet peeve is many
âinstrumental guitar albumsâ that are just
pentatonic scale and standard licks in all shapes and
forms) and ai art can be good.
I will say even more. Iâm sure that soon we will get
new albums from old stars (like letâs say) that will
be great. Critics will be in ave âtriumphant return
to old formâ and everybody will avoid looking in the
eyes and say the truth about how they were able to
write new good songs, given that they werenât able to
do it in like decades.
latexr wrote 9 hours 53 min ago:
> Agree. I didnât say bad.
In fairness, you did say âeven worseâ. Thatâs
not an expression one tends to use unless calling
something bad. I canât imagine someone saying
âthis is the best album ever, and even worse this
is the second bestâ.
> There could be lazy, uninspired but technically
competent as ai art
Thereâs no technique involved to typing words in a
box. Even the people who used to wax lyrically about
âprompt engineeringâ have mostly subsided. AI
pictures (not necessarily âartâ, I donât think
that term should apply to any random image, even from
humans) created with prompting can look technically
competent (e.g. faking an oil painting) but not be
technically competent.
> and ai art can be good.
What is âgoodâ here? Aesthetically pleasing? Then
sure, thatâs a subjective matter of opinion. Even
the yuckiest of gore can be aesthetically pleasing to
the right person. Cronenberg has a cult following for
a reason.
> Iâm sure that soon we will get new albums from
old stars (like letâs say) that will be great.
Again, what is âgreatâ here? Does it mean you
like it? Then sure, canât argue there. Personally I
believe âgreatnessâ has to stand the test of time
at least for a few decades, so we may never know for
sure. I do highly doubt your scenario, though. Why
would an old star be interested in generating a
simulacrum of their old music without doing it
themselves? Apart from a shameless cash grab, that
is.
galkk wrote 9 hours 15 min ago:
Language barrier, sorry.
For âeven worseâ - I meant different, and I
think your analogy is unfair.
One can say something like âthis is not your best
job. It is solid product of a carpenter. Even
worse, I know you could do much better, like a
woodworkerâ. And nothing here says that the job
is _bad_.
But again, my native language is not English and
the way I say things may surely sound unnatural.
ââ
How going back to your argument. You already subtly
move goalposts and give humans mich more benefit of
the doubt and leeway than you give to ai.
> Thereâs no technique involved to typing words
in a box.
There sure is. And thatâs what separates results.
Most of the things that I enjoy are clearly have
good deal of thought in inventing lyrics (again, I
watch lore channels and the way the lyrics are made
is clear that there is a good amount of thought,
prompt and maybe even manual tinkering), in doing
montage of videos. Iâm skeptical about prompt
engineering but your criticism here is as same as
painters criticizing photographers: âthey just
press the buttonâ.
> created with prompting can look technically
competent (e.g. faking an oil painting) but not be
technically competent.
I used to thing along this line too, but later I
realized that this is not an argument in any favor.
Look at like any professional reviewing letâs say
old movies. Thousands of errors - costumes of wrong
epoch, or made wrong way, or worn wrong way. Wrong
guns, wrong ammo etc etc etc. I saw some pro
criticising ai generated picture of a woman on a
horse, and it was about same - the things used to
steer the horse are like upside down, some other
things donât make sense. And then it clicked to
me - it doesnât matter. It isnât unique to ai.
Humans did same stuff forever. As long as result is
enjoyable, itâs fine.
> and ai art can be good.
What is âgoodâ here? Aesthetically pleasing?
Then sure, thatâs a subjective matter of opinion.
Even the yuckiest of gore can be aesthetically
pleasing to the right person. Cronenberg has a cult
following for a reason.
This is strawman and arguing in bad faith by subtly
associating my position with liking gore etc. On
first albums of Metallica you almost can hear how
they are learning and getting better (except
drummer). Yes, if itâs pleasing enough people and
bringing joy to their life then itâs ok. It
doesnât matter is it ai or human. Again, there
are many cases in music when apparently the solos
werenât played by artists but by uncredited
session musicians. Is it slop? Musician acted as
tool here.
> Again, what is âgreatâ here? Does it mean you
like it?
Fans like it. Not only me. It brings new fans or
even casuals may enjoy it
> Personally I believe âgreatnessâ has to stand
the test of time at least for a few decades, so we
may never know for sure.
You do you. Itâs fine.
> I do highly doubt your scenario, though. Why
would an old star be interested in generating a
simulacrum of their old music without doing it
themselves? Apart from a shameless cash grab, that
is.
Why Metallica does new albums? They already have
enough super hits, that stood test of time even
By your definition (decades) to not care. Why other
bands do the same?
â-
In very short. To me it feels that there is an
attempt to steer into public conscience that
Ai = slop
And I disagree with that wholeheartedly. To me
Human Slop = Ai slop = slop
No matter who produces it. Yes, unfortunately ai
enables slop generation significantly easier. I
hate searching for reviews or even analysis now,
but it isnât unique. Netflix documentary was a
meme like 5-10 years ago already, if not more. And
many of them are are exactly what ai slop is today,
made by humans though.
latexr wrote 9 hours 2 min ago:
> For âeven worseâ - I meant different
Thank you for clarifying.
> One can say something like âthis is not your
best job. It is solid product of a carpenter.
Even worse, I know you could do much better, like
a woodworkerâ. And nothing here says that the
job is _bad_.
Except no, that doesn't make sense. It is not
clear at all to say âThis is not your best job.
It is a solid job. Even worseâ¦â. That is very
confusing communication. âEven worseâ means
âsomething was bad but then it got even
badderâ. âEven betterâ is the opposite:
âsomething was good and became even gooderâ.
Using âeven worseâ to mean âthis part was
good but this other part was badâ is incorrect.
The word âworseâ already requires things to
be bad. It is an adjective adding to the
situation, never contradicting it.
See the definition of the word: [1] See how all
of them are âmore â, â to a greater
degreeâ? Worse always means something was
already bad.
> How going back to your argument. You already
subtly move goalposts.
I donât think I have. But because you only made
the accusation without explaining your reasoning,
youâre not giving me any fair chance to clarify
any position. Considering weâve already
established, by your own admission, that English
is not your strong suit (not a criticism),
doesnât it seem more likely to you that
youâve misunderstood my point? Or perhaps that
you should consider that a possibility? As per
the HN guidelines, assume good faith. I assumed
good faith in your argument and responded
respectfully and clearly (to the best of my
ability) to it. I would appreciate the same
courtesy.
URI [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona...
galkk wrote 8 hours 36 min ago:
I am sorry for confusion. Iâm typing on the
phone and accidentally preessed reply before
writing full answer.
I started updating my comment above as soon as
I saw that I posted reply (the one that your
answer addresses). Hope that clarifies my
position and gives you an explanation where I
disagree with your comment.
latexr wrote 6 hours 43 min ago:
I donât think weâre making ourselves
sufficiently understood to each other, and if
you keep lobbing accusations at me without
understanding what Iâm saying, weâre not
going to have a productive discussion. Iâll
address just a couple of quick points.
> Look at like any professional reviewing
letâs say old movies. Thousands of errors
Mistakes are not the same thing as slop.
Itâs not at all related. Hereâs the
definition: [1] > This is strawman and
arguing in bad faith by subtly associating my
position with liking gore etc.
I like gore. I find Cronenberg and old
Japanese movies and anime aesthetically
pleasing. I have done work based on gore. Not
only am I not making a straw man or arguing
in bad faith, Iâm not insulting or
discrediting you in the slightest. Please
stop making assumptions and responding to
those assumptions in your head. I didnât
use gore as an example to discredit you, I
used it because itâs an example of a niche
art that I understand and respect. Itâs the
exact opposite of what you took from it.
> Why Metallica does new albums?
Metallica is not making new albums with AI,
are they? That has nothing to do with your
original point of an artist coming back to
make a new album after decades using AI. How
can you, in good faith, accuse someone else
of shifting the goalposts while engaging in
such a textbook example yourself?
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_slo...
dahrkael wrote 13 hours 7 min ago:
elevator music doesnt need any deep meaning
1718627440 wrote 10 hours 49 min ago:
Elevators don't need any music at all.
Gander5739 wrote 7 hours 50 min ago:
Our basest beggars are in the poorest thing superfluous.
svachalek wrote 17 hours 33 min ago:
Not entirely comparable, but it's easier to find in Korea. "I do"
by I-dle [formerly (G)I-dle] for example, has a wonderful 80s
sound.
thelucent wrote 17 hours 33 min ago:
I did the same too. I listen exclusively to my own songs made with
the help of AI.
My styles are orchestra and symphony pop, which I find rare these
days. Even if it exists, the lyrics might not be something that I
enjoy.
So I just write my own lyrics, decides on the melodies, and put it
to AI to create a polished version.
Do I feel emotional when I listen to it? Of course, its my own
lyrics that I wrote. Of course I sing along with it because its the
melodies I chose.
And its even more emotional because I relate to it.
Someone can create some songs with billion listeners and emotional
for others, but if it doesnât relate to me. What am I supposed to
feel?
My listener wont be able to relate with me personally because they
donât know me. But they might be able to resonates with my songs
because it triggers specific memories or emotions for them. And for
me thatâs enough. Let the songs be the one that they resonates
with.
mycall wrote 6 hours 2 min ago:
> orchestra and symphony pop
You can find a ton of this on archive.org [0]. One of my
favorites is from K-Mart background vinyl. AI can't quite do
this yet.
[0]
URI [1]: https://archive.org/search?query=subject%3A%22Kmart%22&a...
vasco wrote 12 hours 41 min ago:
> My listener wont be able to relate with me personally because
they donât know me
What a perfect illustration that while you typed on a keyboard
you're so far away from making art.
PS: how many pieces of art that moved you were made by artists
you knew or met?
thelucent wrote 10 hours 6 min ago:
I might misunderstood you or you might misunderstood me.
I was moved by a lot of songs made by artists I never met. But
I was moved because of the song, not because of the reason why
the artist wrote it. If I can truly understand the emotional
state of the artist when they wrote it, I might be able to
empathize with them. But that's me empathizing with the person
that made the art as a human. Nothing stopping me from doing
that as a human, even when their song didn't move me.
I publish my songs under a pseudonyms. They can infer what am I
as a person based on the songs that I wrote. They can infer
what emotions and feelings that I am experiencing while I write
the songs. But it's all inference, unless they know me behind
the pseudonyms, they won't be able to relate with me
personally, as my real self, not as the songwriter. And I am
okay with that.
vasco wrote 9 hours 22 min ago:
Well, I was being overly cynical for no reason. Do what makes
you happy man, if that's AI songs who am I to judge. You
clearly care a lot about it and it brings you something.
shevy-java wrote 14 hours 53 min ago:
That's actually a bit creepy to me. How do you deal with a lack
of novelty factor here though? Because ultimately, if you
yourself generate all music you listen to, how could anything be
surprising? I often listen to songs that surprise me in one way
or another.
thelucent wrote 10 hours 24 min ago:
When I said exclusively, its not that I am not exposed to other
songs as well. I do follow certain artists that I really enjoy
listening to because I find their lyrics and melodies resonates
with me, even when its not in the genre that I preferred.
It's just I don't go and explore songs actively. If my playlist
suddenly randomize itself (which YouTube Music usually do even
when I already selected a specific playlist), I usually just
keep it randomizing the songs, I either skip the songs based on
the intro or just the title.
Sometimes, I only write the lyrics without any melodies, or
just give a base chords for the AI to work with without any
melodies, and AI might surprise me on how it suddenly chose a
certain melodies or chord progression.
So you can say I'm exploring, but only within the boundaries of
the lyrics that I wrote. Or when YouTube Music randomly plays a
song for me and I immediately resonates with it.
paul7986 wrote 12 hours 55 min ago:
Im a hobbyist songwriter (melodies and lyricist) of decades
feeding my trove of MP3s/songs to Suno. Listening to Suno
produced version of my songs is way more satisfying then
listening to other peoples music. My Suno slop of many decades
has the most meaning as they all reflect a time, experience, a
feeling in and about life to current world events, etc, etc.
Before Suno I was singing my songs heard in my demos (play
piano & guitar) and Im a terrible singer now they all sound pro
and again are way more meaningful then anyone elses songs.
brigandish wrote 13 hours 22 min ago:
If you write your own songs, you'll realise that they are
infinitely surprising to you, much like one's own children.
Just endlessly fascinating. I sing my own songs all the time,
probably more than other people's.
Of course, that doesn't mean I don't want to listen to new
music by other people, or create more of my own. I'm simply
sharing what it is to experience songs written by yourself. I
saw Sting the other day talking about the very same thing to
Rick Beato regarding songs he wrote 40 years ago, and I
remember Brett Anderson of Suede saying that he loved listening
to his own music. In fact, wouldn't it be weird if you didn't
want to?
filoeleven wrote 6 hours 35 min ago:
Childish Gambino (Donald Glover) said something similar when
asked if he listens to his own music. Paraphrased: There's
this weird stigma about listening to your own music like it's
egotistical. When you make yourself a sandwich, do you feel
egotistical when you enjoy eating it?
thelucent wrote 10 hours 16 min ago:
That's the feelings right? What's wrong with enjoying your
creation right?
The song that I wrote has more values because it carries
memories, emotions, and my internal state. I'm not saying
other songs doesn't have values. It's just harder to resonate
with, unless the melodies or lyrics align with my emotional
state.
I listen to my own songs because I am songwriter, and still
am even when I stopped doing it professionally. I am not
doing it for the sake of "I just want to listen to my own
songs and I will never listen to others". I listen just
because "This song is meaningful for me"
And the "this song" in that quote above, can be mine, or
other's.
imp0cat wrote 14 hours 3 min ago:
Does it really have to be suprising? Some people already have a
life full of surprises (read: stress). Comforting music can
help with that.
textadventure wrote 13 hours 38 min ago:
That's like saying that in order to not be stressed you can
only read books that you write yourself. Are we seriously
going to act like any of this is normal or healthy?
thelucent wrote 10 hours 4 min ago:
maybe a closer analogy is, use software that you wrote
yourself because it helps you solve a specific needs?
Which in this case, my need is to recall the memories and
emotions when I write the song?
throw23232 wrote 10 hours 30 min ago:
This is extremely hyperbolic. The guy says he has a
specific taste that chills him out. Why are you guys so
judgmental?
I love me some Deleuze and Hegel, but my life is full of
"interesting" bits already. Sometimes you need something
simple. Your example is wrong as well: he did not create
his own music, he directed it and yes I would definitely
love to read a book about some weird sci-fi ideas I have
written in some style I love but myself cannot reproduce.
galkk wrote 12 hours 47 min ago:
Your analogy doesnât make any sense.
notrealyme123 wrote 13 hours 19 min ago:
I just don't see any reason to actively search for a
problem. Yes it's new technology and contradicts "the old
ways".
People have made music before, and I hardly believe they
only made It for other people, but als themselves.
overfeed wrote 17 hours 49 min ago:
> Who else is going to make new songs for her?
I doubt she has exhausted all the (old) music made in the 80s and
90s. It's not a problem with supply, but discovery. Ironically,
Suno probably had to overcome that challenge while gathering
training data.
floxy wrote 18 hours 9 min ago:
I also want to state that I think this is the perfect use-case for
generative AI. You have a desire, and you use the AI to scratch
your particular itch. Where it goes wrong is the people who want
to make a quick buck by shoveling out heaps of random crap in the
hopes that there will be some clicks to generate revenue. I mean
someone is going to accidentally discover the prompt for the next
"Baby Shark", get a billion views, and then the real onslaught will
begin.
bardackx wrote 18 hours 34 min ago:
I find super HARD to believe that we ran out of musicians doing
music in the styles of the 80s/90s maybe your friend just doesn't
want to search for new music, and that is ok, it's ok to be lazy,
not a crime; but saying nobody is making such music is a sad
excuse.
galkk wrote 12 hours 38 min ago:
I donât want to copy paste my answer in another thread, but
what if I want to listen to music about some lore? Some topic?
Like this, made by a guy who clearly understands who to use ai?
[1] Ai is a great enabler for people who have ideas but donât
have chops.
URI [1]: https://youtu.be/6YTjH_7QUT0?t=42
patates wrote 14 hours 9 min ago:
> it's ok to be lazy, not a crime
It's normal to hate AI being pushed down our throats, but it's a
completely different thing when we call people names, who enjoy
it on their own.
1718627440 wrote 10 hours 44 min ago:
You can also treat lazy not as an insult, but a behavioural
description. Everyone likes to be lazy for sometime, and if
you do not allow yourself lazy once in a while, you are likely
to get burnout. In fact, that's precisely what was done here:
"it's ok to be lazy".
patates wrote 10 hours 28 min ago:
> if you do not allow yourself lazy once in a while, you are
likely to get burnout
I'm not sure how using AI to generate songs will save anyone
from the burnout of searching for songs, but what I
understood from context is "intellectual laziness" and I see
that as an insult. I'm not a native speaker though, so thanks
for offering another perspective.
1718627440 wrote 9 hours 7 min ago:
This was a comment on the meaning of the world lazy, not an
answer in the general context.
The "intellectual laziness" you describe can be seen as a
way to not spend attention and effort on things, you don't
care for, in other words being rational and mindful.
Not that I agree with this, there is tons of good music
from the past centuries, which I already can't all hear in
my lifetime, that I don't need to start consuming never
ending output from greedy, soulless and evil corporations.
I also don't like modern music that much.
> I'm not a native speaker though
Me neither.
jasonfarnon wrote 14 hours 23 min ago:
"your friend just doesn't want to search for new music, and that
is ok, it's ok to be lazy"
Actually it seems to me like what the friend was doing required a
lot more effort than "searching for new music". This isn't the
80s where you have to get in with the "in crowd" to listen to
bootlegs or limited prints. You're talking about going through
search results at a computer, right? She's actually involving
herself in the music creation process, in some small way.
bigfishrunning wrote 5 hours 35 min ago:
Prompting a machine to generate random slop that sounds like
other music isn't really involving yourself in the creation
process. This person applied no taste or knowledge to the
creation process, didn't learn anything. Just asked for a
pattern matcher to give her something like what she already
had.
Nobody generating anything on Suno is showing any kind of
creativity. It's somehow worse then regular plagiarism.
galkk wrote 12 hours 33 min ago:
Yes, and random song of 80s will be as shitty as random song of
2010s and 2020s.
shevy-java wrote 14 hours 51 min ago:
Well, it is kind of true though. I used to listen to bboy
(breakdance) music; this was ok in the 1990s for the most part.
Then things changed. The music today just ... sucks. I can't
listen to it anymore. And bboying is now just a tricking contest,
with a certain company abusing the dancers as
advertisement-robots for them ... I also see that on youtube,
with constant product marketing and product logo flashing. It's
annoying.
serf wrote 16 hours 48 min ago:
easily liking any kind of music only on the merit that it is
human generated seems lazy, too.
similarly, firing up a music gen system rather than listening to
a billy joel song for the 30,000th time seems less lazy.
say what you want about AI systems, people that I used to see
idly sit at a screen and ingest things all day purely are
creating things they like now and sharing them. The thing is
easier but the engagement seems greater for a lot of people. It's
not as black and white as "oh you're lazy." -- and, by the way ,
that seems so wildly inappropriate to label an unknown third
party as site-unseen -- dare I say that seems lazy?
vintermann wrote 12 hours 24 min ago:
Nobody does that. Literally nobody likes a piece of music just
because it was made by a human.
But consider an album I found a couple of years ago, called
"The Unfinished Violin". A UK folk musician, Sam Sweeney,
bought a violin he thought sounded really good, noticed a name
in it. Researched who he was. Turns out he was a music hall
performer from Leeds. He had made the parts for the violin, but
before he could assemble it, he was sent to fight in WW1 and
died in Flanders. The violin had laid unfinished in an envelope
for the better part of a century. Sweeney arranged a lot of
time-appropriate, military related music for the album, and
wrote a few himself too.
I didn't know any of this when I first heard "The highland
soldier" on Spotify DW. I just thought, wow, that was a
beautiful tune. And it sounded like it meant something to
someone. And it, turned out, it did. It meant something to
Sweeney, it meant something to the folk music collector George
Butterworth who wrote it down (and then also died in WW1), it
meant something to the people he recorded it from.
If I heard a Suno tune, it's entirely possible I'd also think,
wow, that's a beautiful tune. But there's almost no human
connection. Nobody cared about that music. It's not entirely
devoid of humanity, because of course Suno was trained on the
music of people who cared and had something to express, and
there's an echo of it. But the link is severed. It has no human
provenance.
You can cut yourself off from humanity, just use audio as a
drug and not care where it comes from. Certainly a lot of
people did that long before AI. But why, when there's so much
human music to connect with?
habinero wrote 14 hours 47 min ago:
> people that I used to see idly sit at a screen and ingest
things all day purely are creating things they like now and
sharing them
Like what? People say this kind of stuff all the time and it's
either not true or they're generating things with very
questionable taste.
WheatMillington wrote 14 hours 28 min ago:
Like the music being described literally in the thread you're
responding to.
habinero wrote 1 hour 31 min ago:
Yeah, I would absolutely classify that as "questionable
taste" lol.
kode-targz wrote 6 hours 26 min ago:
definition of "very questionable taste"
zdragnar wrote 17 hours 59 min ago:
As someone with very specific tastes in music across several
genres, yes, it's hard to find new bands making what I like.
Every so often I'll find one, but it's pretty rare because-
surprise!- the market for people with my tastes is really small
so quality production targeting me is a bad career decision.
There's not much AI music I like either, but there's at least one
genre where it's really, really hard to find anything both new
and authentically human, so AI scratches the itch occasionally.
Balinares wrote 12 hours 13 min ago:
Possibly contributing to making it a worse career decision is
not strategically optimal.
alwa wrote 18 hours 26 min ago:
Itâs also OK to like what you like. She likes Suno jams. Great!
I feel like this trope is strongest amongst
musicians-feeling-underappreciated, but that the idea seeps in to
all manners of creative work: that, because youâre rightfully
proud of what you do, the audience is wronging you (or
âlazy,â or âsad,â or âcheap,â or âtastelessâ) by
not appreciating it. It doesnât make me feel a lot of sympathy.
kibibu wrote 13 hours 1 min ago:
It is, but also it's ok to silently judge people.
If somebody told me "I choose to only read AI-generated books"
I would also silently judge them.
throw23232 wrote 10 hours 10 min ago:
You guys forgot the "silent" bit though.
Cthulhu_ wrote 11 hours 51 min ago:
What about the long tail of romance novels, fanfiction, etc
though? 50 shades was an outlier in that it was popular but
it's absolute drivel, and there is a lot of that kind of low
quality writing out there.
watwut wrote 10 hours 36 min ago:
Imo, fanfiction crowd is overall much more actively
creating then your average pop culture consumers. And their
engagement with reading is also a fairly active. They are
more likely to write themselves and even if dont, their
reading tend to be and entry point for own fantasies. I
feel like the only ones who have right to judge them are
people who write full on books. And those seem to be aware
this crowd is also simultaneously the last crowd of actual
readers buying their books here and there.
Romance readers got tired of being judged for decades and
decades by people who dont read at all, people who read
pure power fantasies or what not.
latexr wrote 10 hours 46 min ago:
If weâre comparing bad quality to bad quality, human bad
quality is infinitely more interesting. The fact someone
wrote, directed, produced, acted in, etc, in something like
Troll 2 or The Room is what makes those movies special.
Itâs the fact you can go âgod damn, someone thought
this was goodâ and be baffled at specific decisions they
made. Itâs the curiosity of âwhat was going on
thereâ, âwhat drove those individuals to do thisâ,
âhow much of it were outside forcesâ, âwho are these
peopleâ. Itâs all the reasons which make it worth it to
make a movie about a bad movie.
With AI, even if you enjoy it as bad, as soon as you know
itâs AI it loses all interest because thereâs zero
story behind it. The answer to all those questions becomes
âa statistical algorithm made it that wayâ, and
thatâs objectively a boring answer.
1718627440 wrote 10 hours 47 min ago:
Which is why it is also common to silently judge these
readers.
jeltz wrote 10 hours 55 min ago:
I judge people who read those, yes.
textadventure wrote 13 hours 28 min ago:
> Itâs also OK to like what you like. She likes Suno jams.
Great!
People like what they like, sure. And if someone was
particularly into the idea of machines making music, or even
take some cynical enjoyment out of this on the full
understanding of what it is they are doing. Sure, whatever.
But someone acting like listening to AI generated music is
their only choice due to their taste in music? Come on, that's
a sci-fi nightmare right there. Not even going full-on
ecologist here, but the resource expenditure alone is so out of
whack for something only a single person will listen to.
I don't even consider myself a musician, just a human being
baffled at the total lack of humanity and how that lack of
humanity is being normalized. Talk about sympathy.
weberer wrote 9 hours 55 min ago:
What resource expenditure? Inference is dirt cheap,
especially for a single person's prompt.
galkk wrote 12 hours 34 min ago:
Is it though? Do you have calculation how much one suno song
does? I work with databases, and I sometimes wonder how much
energy those full table scans of the world consume, comparing
to ai.
Barbing wrote 15 hours 22 min ago:
That might be OK if Suno had compensated everybody they needed
to.
I feel sympathy for people who made something that was
reappropriated by those without strong ethics.
NietTim wrote 10 hours 46 min ago:
Meanwhile you probably use Spotify or other streaming
platforms without issue.
filoeleven wrote 6 hours 42 min ago:
Artists have to agree to be featured on Spotify, and agree
to the royalty fees they receive. AI just pillaged recorded
human history with zero compensation. Big difference.
platevoltage wrote 18 hours 52 min ago:
I'm still discovering music from "my era". Music doesn't have to be
new to be new to you.
dehrmann wrote 18 hours 52 min ago:
I might be an outlier, but I grew up listening to some genres that
have fallen out of fashion, and I don't feel like I need more songs
from them--we've explored enough of what they can do. What I miss
from the 90's isn't third-wave ska as people trying things and
bizarre songs becoming hits.
floxy wrote 19 hours 10 min ago:
She's in luck:
URI [1]: https://youtu.be/6JCLY0Rlx6Q?si=xZvid6TWR66LTqhE
vlunkr wrote 19 hours 30 min ago:
There are millions of people making music in an ever-expanding set
of genres. The idea that no one is making 80s or 90s style music is
absurd. I guess she can listen to slop but maybe just look around a
little instead?
Edit: slop not slob
harimau777 wrote 18 hours 17 min ago:
Where would you look around?
Previously web search, YouTube, and Reddit would have been my go
to but they have all been enshittified.
latentsea wrote 15 hours 9 min ago:
YouTube is excellent. Aside from my main account I have one
that I mainly just use to listen to music, and I just surf the
algorithm listening to whatever is in the recommend list, which
is usually a handful of songs I've got on heavy rotation, but
YouTube also tends to cycle back some old favorites, and some
new gems. I just keep surfing it day in day out letting it take
me where it will as one of two main ways I listen to music. I
regularly find new gems pretty reliably. All the gems then go
to my playlist in Spotify, which I listen to during my commute.
vlunkr wrote 17 hours 37 min ago:
Iâve had good luck with gnoosic. Or taking artists I like as
a starting point and finding out who influenced them, and who
they influenced.
platevoltage wrote 14 hours 57 min ago:
I always found Last.fm great for this. I have no idea what
it's like now.
giancarlostoro wrote 18 hours 52 min ago:
"Slob" / "slop" is thrown around so much I don't take anyone
seriously who drops that word unless the output matches the
commentary. There's definitely a lot of trash AI stuff out there
don't get me wrong, but there's also insanely high quality AI
generated things out there. Hell, I've sent people songs made in
Suno, and they were surprised to learn that those were AI
generated. If you open suno and type in "90s jazz song" then
yeah, you're likely going to get a bit of generic AI slop. If you
get into specifics, voice style, instrument types, how they're
played, which chords, etc. You can get some insanely high quality
music. Not only that but Suno has a whole DAW style extension to
it they call Suno Studio which is very powerful, you can get AI
stems, you can add your own voice.
Someone could get studio quality tracks for $10 a month, and add
their own vocals and have a high quality sounding song. Is it
slop if you pour hours of work into it tweaking every detail? At
that point using a DAW is slop then (which I'm sure some people
hate music made that way, but a lot of music is made this way).
Cthulhu_ wrote 11 hours 46 min ago:
Thing is, did it take effort and creativity to make it? I
suppose you could argue that fine-tuning a prompt takes effort,
creativity and knowledge, but I argue against that that it's
only a fraction of what it takes to make real music.
If it didn't take effort to make it, if you can repeat it a
hundred times in a week, it's slop. It's a good descriptor,
even if to an untrained ear it's convincing.
slyall wrote 17 hours 47 min ago:
I've also seen people using the term "slop" for low quality
human-generated content (lowbrow movies etc)
sph wrote 10 hours 23 min ago:
It's a cultural affectation like attaching -maxxing to any
adjective.
I smile when I come across the term 'qualityslop', which is
an oxymoronic term to indicate very good human content.
URI [1]: https://i.redd.it/uvgtw725asfg1.jpeg
Cthulhu_ wrote 11 hours 45 min ago:
I don't mind it, because there already was a lot of slop
before AI, which a lot of people seem to forget. But that's
also because they weren't the consumers / target audience so
it's off their radar.
giancarlostoro wrote 13 hours 30 min ago:
This is my other problem, people calling things that aren't
even AI as "AI slop" which cracks me up but is also
concerning.
Thanemate wrote 12 hours 44 min ago:
Now that AI is here, why read Hacker News comments? I bet
you can generate quality content with AI! Do we even need
to write anymore?
taneq wrote 18 hours 22 min ago:
Iâve been thinking the same thing about AI artwork (as
opposed to âchat pls make me a funny pictureâ and seeing
what comes out, although thereâs some increasingly
interesting things coming out of that approach). Thereâs
often an insane amount of work going into the guts of the image
generation pipeline. Sure, itâs not pencil-on-paper drawing
things but to me, art is about creating and exploring. All the
same vitriol was directed toward cameras, audio synthesisers,
3D rendering, Photoshop, digital cameras, etc. The hate is not
about the technique, itâs about someone else getting the same
results âeasierâ with a different workflow.
habinero wrote 14 hours 40 min ago:
What? Those things were absolutely not criticized in the same
way. Most of the time they weren't criticized at all lol.
The problem isn't about it being "easier", it's about people
who want the praise and attention of being a maker but don't
want to put any thought or effort into it. They have no
thoughts and nothing to say and what they generate reflects
that.
platevoltage wrote 18 hours 42 min ago:
I just don't get it. Music isn't just what comes out of the
speaker. There are artists, with lives and influences behind
the music. There is personal expression in the lyrics. Even
when the artist chooses to remain anonymous, or they choose to
not have lyrics at all, there is still something personal
behind it. A DAW is just a tool, and it's a tool that can be
used badly, for example, over produced metal with quantized and
sample replaced drums. Sure, AI can be a tool for music
production just like a DAW can, but when it crosses the line
into, lets call it "vibe-produced" music, it is indeed slop,
and deserves to be referred to as such.
latentsea wrote 15 hours 15 min ago:
> There is personal expression in the lyrics.
Sometimes there is. Sometimes it's just made up shit with no
real backing in the same way a lot of stories told in comedy
routines are. Not all of it is genuine expression.
I love music and I frequently go to live shows, so the bar
for me has kind of become "Can I go see this artist live, OR
is it so good that I don't care that I can't?" If it passes
that, I'll listen. I've found one AI generated song that has
made it onto my top 100 favorite songs I've ever heard.
The thing that really shits me with AI music is when it
outputs default ChatGPT sounding lyrics. There's certain
tells and boy do they give me the ick.
cameronh90 wrote 14 hours 25 min ago:
> outputs default ChatGPT sounding lyrics
Arenât you curious how a modern solar panel works so well
with no moving parts?
latentsea wrote 6 hours 52 min ago:
I'll bet you "neon" is somewhere in those lyrics.
platevoltage wrote 15 hours 8 min ago:
> Sometimes there is. Sometimes it's just made up shit with
no real backing in the same way a lot of stories told in
comedy routines are. Not all of it is genuine expression.
I don't necessarily agree. Read the lyrics to the "irony is
a dead scene" EP by the Dillinger Escape Plan and Mike
Patton. It's nonsense. Still genuine expression.
Most Carpenter Brut songs don't even have lyrics and there
is endless expression there. I know that I consume music in
a very different way than most people, and that's probably
why I have such a strong opinion here.
vlunkr wrote 17 hours 22 min ago:
Yeah this is how I feel. People who like AI music seem to be
a same people who would just throw on random "deep work" or
"lofi" youtube playlists and let them run all day. That has
never appealed to me. I like to learn about the artists and
history.
hombre_fatal wrote 19 hours 0 min ago:
It's not just look around a little. It's look around a lot. It's
spend all your music-listening time looking around.
Have the ick for AI-gen, fine. But dismissing the things it
solves puts you in a position where you'll never understand other
people.
vintermann wrote 12 hours 19 min ago:
That's a really ironic comment. I think accepting AI music as a
substitute for all but the most unimportant background noise,
is a sign that one doesn't really care about understanding
other people.
Barbing wrote 15 hours 20 min ago:
> It's spend all your music-listening time looking around.
Spotify algorithm not kind to everyone I suppose⦠Iâm
enough of a normie with music it works for me. Crate digging
doesnât feel too time consuming at all (as easy as throwing
on quirky California college radio stations).
dahrkael wrote 12 hours 57 min ago:
Spotify is full of AI songs so not a good alternative in this
case
Cthulhu_ wrote 11 hours 48 min ago:
It can be, but you'll need to look up the human made /
curated playlists; definitely avoid Spotify's own (as
they've been seeding them with their own songs for a while
now, even before AI), and don't enable the auto mixing /
radio feature.
a57721 wrote 14 hours 7 min ago:
> quirky California college radio stations
I listen to SomaFM ( [1] ) and FIP ( [2] ), they have online
streams by genre. When something gets me interested, I look
up the artist, and I keep discovering lots of new names,
independent labels, etc.
URI [1]: https://somafm.com/
URI [2]: https://www.radiofrance.fr/fip
vlunkr wrote 17 hours 28 min ago:
You can spend your time looking for music or you can spend it
prompting Suno. Personally I'll always take the former, I enjoy
it, but to each their own.
echelon wrote 19 hours 11 min ago:
> The idea that no one is making 80s or 90s style music is
absurd.
The idea that only humans can make music is absurd.
> I guess she can listen to slob but maybe just look around a
little instead?
The idea that AI generated = slop is absurd.
Humans create just as much, if not more slop. Look at 99% of
"professional" output in creative fields. It's awful.
A human with taste steering AI tools can be better than a
"classical" human with hard skills but no taste.
The old world is going to be run over: [1] Completely. Run. Over.
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWZYP5jn5w4
f4 wrote 2 hours 43 min ago:
That video isn't helping your case.
That's not to say you can't make effortful novel content using
AI, but this is just lazy hollow stimulation. Like all the
laziest of AMVs, nothing to say outside of "isn't this cool?".
We want to see the person underneath and what ideas they
explore through the medium - AI is just a fancy new tool of the
times.
Who cares what brush or canvas Vincent used to make Starry
Night? Without his name on it, it's just another oil painting.
Griffinsauce wrote 13 hours 39 min ago:
Run over in what way?
hooverd wrote 2 hours 10 min ago:
Like the levees surrounding a lagoon of pig shit in the South
breaking and flooding the nearby community.
jeltz wrote 10 hours 43 min ago:
In that the avalance of slop will make it impossible to find
quality stuff, human or AI.
halestock wrote 16 hours 13 min ago:
Huh, I wonder what happens when people stop making real music
for AIs to train on, then.
userbinator wrote 16 hours 31 min ago:
I did not expect that one to show up here on HN, but it's
definitely a human artist using AI. He has a few others which
are just as entertaining.
vlunkr wrote 17 hours 34 min ago:
Was that video supposed to convince us that AI music is good?
zfoong wrote 18 hours 54 min ago:
Rather than genuinely enjoying a well-made/actually
entertaining AI content, people are just gonna blindly hate on
anything AI-generated.
xphos wrote 14 hours 46 min ago:
I think the cost pressures just make most AI generated stuff
slop. Its not that AI can't make good stuff its that the slop
to good ratio is 100s of times worse with AI published music
than with human stuff. Simply because AI generation cost is
essentially zero.
Purely a economic argument but also the rare good music from
AI I am still looking its generally speaking not that
cohesive and for unremarkable. A lot of human work is that to
but the discovery of good music from people feels much less
daunting
harimau777 wrote 18 hours 16 min ago:
Until AI companies pay for all the content that they stole, I
think that is a reasonable response.
dahrkael wrote 12 hours 49 min ago:
AceStep XL is a music generation model trained on an open
dataset. is the content generated with that one okay with
you then?
Balinares wrote 12 hours 12 min ago:
What dataset? (Honest question! What's in it?)
echelon wrote 11 hours 18 min ago:
I don't mind that ChatGPT and Claude were trained on my
HN and Reddit comments.
I don't mind that Opus and Codex were trained on my
code.
I don't mind that Seedance and Veo were trained on my
YouTube videos.
I benefit from the models.
userbinator wrote 16 hours 35 min ago:
Until humans pay for all the "content that they stole" and
learned from, I think that is reasonable response.
platevoltage wrote 18 hours 38 min ago:
As they should. AI can't create art, because AI doesn't have
a sense of expression.
userbinator wrote 16 hours 34 min ago:
You're right, there's always a human driving the AI to
create art.
glitcher wrote 19 hours 13 min ago:
I agree with you when it comes to my own process of finding new
music, but the example given was a lot more specific than just
80s/90s music. Whoâs to say that person didnât do extensive
searches before using Suno? Sounds more like the classic
discoverabity problem big platforms continue to do poorly with to
me. But I agree with the sentiment, great stuff by real artists
is out there if youâre able to find it.
_carbyau_ wrote 19 hours 17 min ago:
> just look around a little instead?
This seems harder than you suggest. I suggest things to my
streaming platform and it reverts to what I call "cruisy shit"
within 5-10 songs as though it's playing a game of "6 degrees"
between my chosen starting point and what it wants to play.
For me, "The Algorithm To Engage" is more of a "the beatings will
continue until morale improves Algorithm".
TylerE wrote 19 hours 32 min ago:
The large number of actual bands from that era still around?
montag wrote 19 hours 24 min ago:
Consider yourself lucky if they still make music in their vintage
style
dmix wrote 20 hours 20 min ago:
YouTube music doesnât seem to care much about where the music comes
from. They do have formal album libraries but not everything is
carefully sourced and labelled like Spotify. Thatâs what makes it
good, because you can find tons of lost mixes, old unreleased track
and vinyl rips, leaks of new stuff from current artists
I use YouTube proper quite heavily and I find it pretty easy to spot
the AI stuff. At a minimum thereâs usually a comment pointing it
out, just like Instagram videos
progbits wrote 20 hours 14 min ago:
> carefully sourced and labelled like Spotify
I wish I had your Spotify.
Over the last few months they have served me multiple slop tracks
in the discover weekly playlist. Probably more I didn't notice when
just listening without focus, but several had generic artist name
without bio and dozens of nearly identical tracks.
nixass wrote 20 hours 26 min ago:
> People praising it in the comments seem none the wiser
Or.. they simply like it? Regardless of what we think about it
poszlem wrote 19 hours 37 min ago:
I think the op mean people writing stuff like: "Amazing what a
human soul can create", "This is such a beautiful song. I'm so
happy it's not another AI slop" type of comments. I have a fairly
popular youtube channel with AI generated music, I make it very
obvious that it's AI, yet I still get hundreds of those comments a
month.
userbinator wrote 16 hours 11 min ago:
I make it very obvious that it's AI, yet I still get hundreds of
those comments a month.
That suggests you've done a good job of directing the AI to
generate what people like.
eichin wrote 10 hours 54 min ago:
or that the comments themselves are AI/bots? (not meant as a
criticism, other than of youtube itself)
zahlman wrote 20 hours 4 min ago:
Indeed. I've heard a few compositions that I knew were AI-generated
and still thought were pretty good.
lelandfe wrote 19 hours 57 min ago:
Look up Xania Monet. AI artist âsignedâ to Warner Bros with a
multimillion contract after âsheâ charted on Billboard.
Thereâs an appetite for this.
nelsonfigueroa wrote 19 hours 21 min ago:
Wow I had no idea there were already popular AI artists. Xania
Monet has ~500k monthly listeners on Spotify and some of her
(its?) youtube videos have millions of views. This is
depressing.
fleebee wrote 19 hours 16 min ago:
I don't think it's people deliberately seeking this stuff
out. For whatever reason, the algorithms love recommending AI
content, and I'm sure the numbers are juiced to some degree
with bot farms.
Not that it still isn't depressing.
Nathanba wrote 13 hours 33 min ago:
I love my hour long AI songs, I listen to them over and
over again. Check out: [1] or
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfqOEyLFrJI
URI [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-dRotOi01Q
knome wrote 18 hours 38 min ago:
>the algorithms love recommending AI content
wouldn't be surprised if it's because they don't have to
pay out for AI music.
throwaway85825 wrote 19 hours 48 min ago:
Just re-upload it. AI generated work cant be copyrighted.
fc417fc802 wrote 18 hours 20 min ago:
An often repeated talking point that's broadly false without
further context. Mechanical output on its own can't be
copyrighted, that hasn't changed. However it can be if
sufficient (as determined by the courts) human creativity
went into causing it to be output.
ThrustVectoring wrote 19 hours 26 min ago:
Even if the courts won't uphold the copyright, that doesn't
prevent people from claiming your videos and initiating
YouTube's copyright process against you. This is a recurring
problem for people who upload their own original performances
of public-domain compositions, particularly solo piano.
tardedmeme wrote 7 hours 40 min ago:
What if you claim it first against them? You wouldn't be
punished for a false claim, since they're not.
ThrustVectoring wrote 55 min ago:
uhh, no
Reasonable people can believe they have a legitimate
ownership right when they petition YouTube for copyright
enforcement for AI-generated work. The courts might
eventually disagree, but that's a different thing than
knowingly making a fraudulent misrepresentations to
YouTube for financial benefit. This difference makes the
proposed behavior criminal fraud. I highly recommend not
risking twenty years of prison time for like maybe a
couple hundred dollars in ad revenue.
anigbrowl wrote 17 hours 5 min ago:
Indeed. False copyright claims should be illegal, they're
an invitation to fraud.
felooboolooomba wrote 21 hours 16 min ago:
Good start, but it seems you still need to click on the video though.
nickvec wrote 21 hours 19 min ago:
I have a hard time believing that AI can be used to label AI-generated
videos without there being a significant number of false
positives/negatives. I think back to ZeroGPT and it labeling the
Declaration of Independence as AI-generated.
CountHackulus wrote 4 hours 12 min ago:
Considering YouTube's current level of detection of absolutely
anything, this will likely be an absolute disaster with no way of
appealing to a real human.
ecshafer wrote 16 hours 17 min ago:
videos and images have non-ai methods for detecting if its ai, its
easier than text. There are some image artifacts in AI that can be
found statistically.
brikym wrote 18 hours 6 min ago:
If it simply costs more time and money to generate videos that pass
the filter I'm all for it. The time and money cost of creating videos
has tended to zero so there is a lot of low quality stuff now.
It's not just from AI either. Video creation used to require a fancy
camera and a above average internet connection. Now the whole world
has that so we're seeing a lot of low quality profit seeking content
on any platform where there is money to be made. There was a GitHub
repo with 100s of low quality PRs because people thought it would
boost their job prospects.
msabalau wrote 19 hours 51 min ago:
I mean, between SynthID and C2PA don't you already have labels and
watermarks that covering a lot of major players like Google, Adobe,
ElevenLabs, NIVIDEA? No real concern about false negatives there.
As for false positive, the most straightforward path seems to be to
let stuff slide unless you are really sure. Maybe that slightly
rewards players like Kling because they keep the invisible watermarks
for their own use, and that of the CCP,but not third parties. NBD.
It's not like catching everything is that important. YouTube isn't
claiming this is perfect. And I don't know that anyone need this to
be perfect. It's not like even the best photorealistic video creation
tools don't have plenty of tells anyway.
This doesn't seem like ZeroGPT at all. Having a flag or not having
flag on a YouTube short is low stakes. Its not like it's being sold
as a solution for something high stakes like academic grading.
observationist wrote 20 hours 26 min ago:
All they need to do is "randomly" label 99,999 of every 100,000 as AI
and they'll be right 99.999% of the time.
Cryptographically verifiable provenance and chain of custody is going
to be necessary to get to the human only stuff, before long, but the
good AI stuff will be better. Just a matter of time, at this point.
wtetzner wrote 19 hours 3 min ago:
> All they need to do is "randomly" label 99,999 of every 100,000
as AI and they'll be right 99.999% of the time.
Unfortunately that could still be true while labeling all
human-crafted content as AI-created.
intrasight wrote 19 hours 35 min ago:
Not sure why you appear to be downvoted. Cryptographic provenance
is indeed the only solution to humanities digital woes. But only
the government could make that a rule so it's not going to happen -
at least not in my lifetime.
xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote 20 hours 30 min ago:
I don't know how YouTube's detection will work, but if it were based
solely on watermarks, there would be many false negatives, but there
shouldn't be false positives.
beloch wrote 21 hours 2 min ago:
There's a reason why they led with simply labeling author
self-reported AI videos as AI, and then casually mentioned they'll
also try to detect AI videos automatically. They're not confident in
it working reliably and want people to have low expectations. This is
probably realistic. Using AI to detect AI is not reliable. Detecting
AI videos is likely to become an arms race and will require an
ongoing commitment of resources.
This is better than nothing, but it's not going to provide immunity
against AI fakes trending and having impact before they're identified
as AI.
pardon_me wrote 19 hours 36 min ago:
They make a bunch of money off the videos, same as uploaded
copyright material (before eventually taking them down).
zulban wrote 21 hours 12 min ago:
In theory you're right, in practice you're not.
We don't need the metaphysical solution to the problem of detecting
AI videos for the rest of time. Certainly, it's fairly easy to make
something that mostly works most of the time. Enough to be very, very
useful.
CivBase wrote 19 hours 25 min ago:
> something that mostly works most of the time
Problem is that at YouTube's scale the remaining "some of the time"
ends up being a collossal figure. On top of that, YouTube's
effective monopoly position magnifies the damage done by false
positives.
numpad0 wrote 20 hours 29 min ago:
This definitely needs substantiation. I've NEVER seen such usable
tools EVER. AI flagging in general has always been very sketchy
IME.
loveiswork wrote 20 hours 33 min ago:
Please tell me this is a joke, or that you're not building anything
important at work. It's a very well known problem that YouTube's
algorithmic moderation hurts a lot of honest creators, and their
ability to make a living, when there is a false positive or is
abused.
dyauspitr wrote 20 hours 56 min ago:
People make a living off this platform though, this could be really
bad for someone that lives off of YouTube to have their videos
labeled as AI generated. This would still be OK if there was a
person at YouTube you could contact to manually review and reverse
the decision, but that doesnât really exist so thereâs no one
you can really appeal to in a timely manner.
josephg wrote 20 hours 39 min ago:
Lots of people making a living off the platform clearly use LLMs
to write their scripts. Its kind of weird hearing a person talk
to me about something, and then notice characteristic chatgpt
patter in their speech.
I'm sure many content creators' videos will be labelled as AI
generated. For good reason.
floxy wrote 20 hours 51 min ago:
Wouldn't the human creators be the biggest advocates of labeling,
so that their content can be more easily found among the AI
dross? And that's not considering the fate of the platform as a
whole if it descends into low-effort AI spam swamping out
everything else. I guess it will be interesting if it is all
bots consuming bot-generated content in a parallel economy.
wtetzner wrote 19 hours 6 min ago:
> Wouldn't the human creators be the biggest advocates of
labeling, so that their content can be more easily found among
the AI dross?
Only if it actually works
floxy wrote 18 hours 45 min ago:
Generally things aren't successful unless they work
wtetzner wrote 3 hours 2 min ago:
The entire discussion was centered around whether or not
using AI to detect AI content would work, or if it would
create false positives that harm human content creators.
It could work "well enough" for YouTube to consider it a
success while still harming a fairly large number of
content creators.
StableAlkyne wrote 21 hours 0 min ago:
People feel strongly about AI generated content; this is a case
where false positives can destroy credibility and disrupt careers.
"Works most of the time" isn't good enough here.
seanmcdirmid wrote 19 hours 35 min ago:
There will also be tiktok challenges to do a video that YouTube
flags as AI without actually using AI.
floxy wrote 19 hours 49 min ago:
This isn't even at the level of the spam filter on your email
account. Are there some false positives and negatives? Yes.
Are there some people sending emails who are negatively affected
by falsely ending up in the junk mail folder? Yes. Are we going
to turn off spam filtering because of this? No. Why should we
accept video spam any more than text spam?
zulban wrote 14 hours 0 min ago:
Excellent analogy. I'm going to use that sometime.
Email spam filtering can clearly cause reputational harm too.
numpad0 wrote 19 hours 40 min ago:
The problem is that it's not SOME false positives, AI detectors
so far have been all so comically bad that they might be
classified as pseudoscience. Or an artificial false positive
generators even.
floxy wrote 19 hours 24 min ago:
We'll I'd think that YouTube would have incentive to get it
right. Either there are too many false positives and the
content creators go away and YouTube collapses. Or there are
too many false negatives and the viewers go away, and YouTube
collapses. I mean there is a chance that garbage people will
ruin video sharing platforms for everyone.
AnthonyMouse wrote 17 hours 48 min ago:
Having the incentive to do something and having the ability
to do it are not the same thing.
It's not like human-generated content is made of carbon and
AI-generated content is made of silicon and the science of
chemistry can unambiguously tell them apart. If you asked a
million humans and a million LLMs to write a sentence on a
specific subject, it's not implausible that one of the LLMs
and one of the humans would output the exact same sentence.
Maybe more than one.
A thing that can take only the output and accurately tell
you if it was AI-generated or not is therefore impossible,
because if it said no it would be wrong when the LLM
generates that sentence, but if it said yes it would be
wrong when a human generates the exact same sentence.
All it can do is try to calculate a probability. But then
what do you want to do with that? Suppose the probability
it estimates for some content is 45%, and that probability
estimate is an accurate measure of the true probability,
i.e. can't be improved when the only information you have
is the content itself. Do you want to ban the 55% of that
content which is human-generated, or allow the 45% which is
AI-generated?
floxy wrote 17 hours 37 min ago:
Right now the problem is the flood of low-quality AI spam
that might (or might not) be low hanging fruit. We can
worry about high quality AI artifacts later if that
becomes a problem. (and yes, there is no guarantee that
YouTube won't fail due to these spammers)
numpad0 wrote 16 hours 55 min ago:
But is an algorithmic AI detector really a thing?
I get the idea: get 10k each samples of human data and
AI data, train a simple classifier until it gets
99.9999% accuracy or <10k false negatives per day at
your scale, ship it as a screening tool.
Is such tool feasible at all with current state of AI
technology, or is it just a reasonable take from the
past that may not be so reasonable anymore?
AnthonyMouse wrote 8 hours 58 min ago:
> I get the idea: get 10k each samples of human data
and AI data, train a simple classifier until it gets
99.9999% accuracy or <10k false negatives per day at
your scale
The issue is, that's not a thing. AI-generated
content and human-generated content have significant
overlap. No amount of training data can allow you to
distinguish them with that level of accuracy because
many outputs exist that could have been generated by
either one. Additional training data allows you to
say that the probability is 55.0374% plus or minus
0.0001, rather than only being able to say that it's
55% plus or minus 5%. It can tell you with greater
precision exactly how ambiguous it is. What it can't
do is remove the ambiguity.
floxy wrote 16 hours 28 min ago:
We will find out shortly? YouTube is the one saying
they are going to implement this:
"If a creator doesnât specify whether or not they
used AI, but our systems detect significant
photorealistic AI use, we will now automatically
apply a label."
zulban wrote 19 hours 51 min ago:
This isn't a choice between "perfectly fine how things are now"
and "destroying credibility". If it were, you're right - "good
enough to be useful" wouldn't be a high enough bar.
Things are not perfectly fine how things are now. AI slop is
destroying the internet. Tons of grifters are earning tons of
money off YouTube by brainwashing millions of people with AI
slop, including my mom. YouTube needs to do something and this
seems feasible and far better than doing nothing.
I also think the false positive rate is going to be far lower
than you think - especially if YouTube sets a caution threshold.
I'm open to other solutions but if you propose we just keep what
we have now, then you are proposing an absolute disaster.
ultrarunner wrote 20 hours 5 min ago:
Even worse if it's some attribute considered by the algorithm but
not disclosed. "Likely AI" is enough to be damaging without even
being tagged "Disclosed as AI"
denkmoon wrote 20 hours 38 min ago:
They donât seem to care about false positives anywhere else on
the platform. Being at the mercy of automated Google systems
comes with the territory.
cloogshicer wrote 21 hours 2 min ago:
This attitude of "individual cases don't matter as long as the
average case is somewhat covered" is exactly why the world's going
to shit.
The parent post's worry is warranted, IMO.
csallen wrote 20 hours 12 min ago:
You're wrong from your very premise. The world isn't going to
shit. It's better than it's been at pretty much any time in human
history, in almost every facet.
zulban wrote 14 hours 1 min ago:
Indeed. See also Pinker's book Better Angels.
elliotec wrote 10 hours 16 min ago:
On average Steven Pinker is at best a fake
hyperoptimist-by-aggregate who puts billionaires on pedestals
and rewrites history to entrench shitty systems. Sometimes he
says smart stuff but he ignores or actively disregards
massive problems with a painfully self-serving neutrality.
platevoltage wrote 18 hours 32 min ago:
You could say it's trending up, but there is no way you can
deny that we are in a regressive period.
madibo3156 wrote 19 hours 9 min ago:
In theory you're right, in practice you're not.
saltyoldman wrote 19 hours 25 min ago:
Yeah I get the pretty much, the car was near the mountain top
in the 80s and 90s and "pretty much" flew off a cliff more
recently. Sure, we're still alive but everyone is going to die
in about 5 seconds.
Drugs are out of control. Homeless are everywhere. No one has
interests in anything. No one is having kids. All jobs are
going to be gone soon. Colleges can't teach (it's all AI
cheating now). People are Gang Robbing stores. Cartels are
killing hundreds daily. Fraud is out of control. We have 2
maybe 3 world wars going on simultaneously now. Prices are
skyrocketing.
Yeah I get why you say "pretty much". lol PS good luck buying a
house
floxy wrote 19 hours 4 min ago:
>(it's all AI cheating now)
My daughter's English professor is now requiring people to
hand write their essays during class. So at least there is
that.
makeitdouble wrote 19 hours 30 min ago:
You're arguing the world is at its peak, they're arguing it's
directed in a shit direction. You're not disproving them at
this point.
tredre3 wrote 19 hours 42 min ago:
Fair enough. The online world is going to shit.
ultrarunner wrote 20 hours 5 min ago:
(Individual experiences may vary)
arcanemachiner wrote 21 hours 5 min ago:
And this philosophy will only lead to Kafkaesque nightmare
scenarios for 1-2% of the population, so we're still coming out
ahead.
bee_rider wrote 20 hours 56 min ago:
As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams, he found
that one of his YouTube videos had gotten a little less
engagement.
J_Shelby_J wrote 21 hours 30 min ago:
I donât care about gen AI video content. Thatâs fine. Saves
creators from having to buy b-roll. I appreciate cinematography, but
itâs not what I come to YouTube for.
What I absolutely loathe and instantly block is AI narration. Thatâs
an instant deal breaker for me. And itâs gotten to the point that
without a shot of the creator or obvious humanisms like microphone
sounds, I assume a new creator is AI tts reading an LLM generated
script. There are thousands of these channels.
Marsymars wrote 12 hours 14 min ago:
> I donât care about gen AI video content. Thatâs fine. Saves
creators from having to buy b-roll. I appreciate cinematography, but
itâs not what I come to YouTube for.
As someone who doesn't use youtube, this seems conceptually wacky.
i.e. Why aren't those video simply RSS podcasts? Yeah, incentives,
but if the video doesn't matter, they'd be a better product as a
podcast.
willy_k wrote 14 hours 17 min ago:
What bothers me even more than AI narration is human narration of AI
content. I come across so many videos now, especially in the genre of
video essays about TV shows, that seems promising at first glance and
then after listening for a couple minutes the AI patterns become
obvious (it unfortunately takes longer to notice when spoken vs
written). It is getting trickier to intentionally find good new
channels; the algorithm does a surprisingly decent job as long as
youâre consistent about what youâll tolerate.
Dylan16807 wrote 19 hours 58 min ago:
Even if you're acquiring b-roll, a cheap subscription or even free
content is a lot better in my view. Throwing in AI content is false
precision.
zahlman wrote 19 hours 58 min ago:
I've thought about making explainer videos for math and CS concepts
(with animated diagrams etc., you know). But I really don't want my
voice and image out there any more than necessary / they already are.
Now I'm wondering if this kind of work would be better off silent
than with TTSâ¦
Venn1 wrote 20 hours 29 min ago:
I've resorted to lowering the quality of my recordings because of
this. People are fantastically bad at discerning AI from properly
produced audio. So now I leave in a couple of breaths and a little
environmental noise to tap the brakes on the "AI slop" comments.
Thing is, it would be trivial to add those to an AI narration.
danudey wrote 20 hours 58 min ago:
I find that most "AI" content I see is an obviously genai script,
obviously genai narration, and genai "b-roll", all of which are
mostly trash.
I recently was recommended a video about one of the political
frictions between the US and Canada, it was posted in January 2026
but after about 30 seconds I realized that it was very obviously
talking as though it was January 2025; it was a year behind, and
therefore spreading effectively misinformation about the current
state of negotiations, policies, politics, etc.
The problem, as I see it, is that in a lot of cases these channels
aren't just "using AI to produce their content", but using AI to
mass-produce content with zero effort on their part - meaning zero
attempt to make sure what they're saying is accurate. While I do mean
that from the "not deliberately spreading misinformation"
perspective, I also mean it from the "knowing what year it is"
perspective as well.
That said, I was also recommended a channel that was very confusing;
the voiceover was obviously AI, but the video content itself wasn't.
Since it's usually the other way around, if anything, I went to look
at their channel and they had an "intro to my channel" video that was
a man behind the camera, speaking strongly accented English, talking
about his office setup - laptop, desktop, etc. - that he uses for
making his videos. It became obvious that he was using AI scripts and
voiceovers to produce the content he wanted to produce, but without
his accent or lack of strong English fluency being a detriment.
It was the first time I've ever seen someone using AI-generated
content in a way that I couldn't obviously say that not using AI
would have had a better result.
brikym wrote 21 hours 36 min ago:
Also the amount of scammy crap quality on YouTube has exploded since
developing countries have more access. The cost of publishing is
tending to zero.
thisisaman408 wrote 21 hours 42 min ago:
is this gonna affect the monetization of those videos too?
Well i think even if not directly, people will somehow loose interest
in ai generated videos, people would not want a low effort content
grabbing there attention.
akersten wrote 21 hours 42 min ago:
It must be a tricky problem to balance. On the one hand, you as Google
want people to create 30 seconds of video per month with your cool
Omni, Flow, Gemini, etc. tools.
On the other hand, as soon as people share those things on the logical
platform for sharing videos, they'll be branded with the scarlet
letter.
I wonder what Google is thinking - that people won't mind? That it
won't matter? That Omni is just marketing and they don't actually want
people to use it?
danudey wrote 20 hours 56 min ago:
I mean, here's what I don't get: why does YouTube care? We're already
uploading an entire human lifespan worth of videos to YouTube every
day, do they really benefit from more content? Or is this content
somehow inherently more monetizable than what people are already
uploading?
parliament32 wrote 21 hours 13 min ago:
Is it really any different than Google wants advertisers on YT, but
still labels ads as ads?
reddalo wrote 21 hours 5 min ago:
They don't really want to label ads as ads (no advertiser really
does...); they're forced by regulations from multiple countries.
pona-a wrote 11 hours 24 min ago:
There's also the matter of brand reputation. You don't want to
make your ads seem like your own or your user's public
communications.
adrianmonk wrote 19 hours 47 min ago:
Maybe I'm weird, but I believe in the theory that (all else
equal) it's good for business to minimize how much your users
hate your product/service.
In other words, users dislike the feeling of not knowing whether
things are ads. I can't see any real downside to labeling them,
so you're better off doing it so you don't drive users away.
WarmWash wrote 21 hours 19 min ago:
Google is not a monolith. For all intents and purposes YouTube might
as well be a totally different company than Deepmind. Everyone in
there own respective google fiefdom is trying to maximize their own
metrics.
jvaqueiro wrote 21 hours 38 min ago:
Maybe they're just going for "disclosure" as in people understanding
it's AI, and hopefully mitigating fake news. Don't know if it impacts
monetization?
If the video is entertainig I doubt people will mind it's AI. Let's
wait and see.
reddalo wrote 21 hours 3 min ago:
Also they're probably trying to prevent lawmakers from coming up
with stricter limits. "We're already marking AI videos as AI, no
need to change!"
zitterbewegung wrote 21 hours 39 min ago:
Why are they saying to not distribute on YouTube they just want to
give an indicator. Same with labeling if a video is an AD. I find
some of the obvious AI content to be funny or informative .
ChrisArchitect wrote 21 hours 44 min ago:
This is fine, good, whatever... but my thing is can creators remove it
successfully for 'false flags'.
> However, according to YouTube, the AI labels will âremain
permanentâ in some cases,
YouTube isn't exactly known for taking care of complaints/having any
human on the other end to deal with these kinds of things.
skybrian wrote 21 hours 57 min ago:
One advantage is that if it's labelled as AI, we don't need to have a
conversation in the comments about whether it's AI or not.
bauble wrote 19 hours 55 min ago:
Only if you view the label as accurate, which you really, really
should not.
skybrian wrote 15 hours 40 min ago:
If an account claims to be a bot, I don't see much downside in
assuming it's true?
bauble wrote 23 min ago:
I'm referring to the tag that Youtube is going to assign
automatically.
parliament32 wrote 21 hours 11 min ago:
I wish HN would do the same for submissions.
jameson wrote 22 hours 1 min ago:
I suggest turning off recommendation if you dislike what they suggest
My YT landing page is completely blank and need to go "subscription"
tab to see newly uploaded vids from the ones I subscribe to
It's quite nice not having to view all kinds of random stuff YT wants
me to see
nicbou wrote 8 hours 38 min ago:
I use Unhooked on desktop and UnTrap on iOS for this. Both work
flawlessly, and reduced my YouTube usage to almost zero.
xpct wrote 13 hours 54 min ago:
This is exactly how I consume YouTube as well. I do keep the side
recommendations on since they mostly contain music or videos I've
already watched, which I don't mind.
I'm now experimenting with hiding thumbnails too, and honestly I've
been liking it a lot. It's a very curious feeling how my eyes can no
longer latch on to something visually appealing, and instead try to
look for information in channel names.
jdubs1984 wrote 19 hours 45 min ago:
I suggest stopping any and all interaction w/ the algorithm. Get a
library card and be intentional about your media consumption choices.
denkmoon wrote 19 hours 19 min ago:
It's a nice thought but it ignores that there is so much
interesting, informative media on youtube that just does not exist
anywhere else, at all.
Marsymars wrote 12 hours 26 min ago:
I've already got more interesting, informative books on my
to-read list than I'm going to have time to finish in my
lifetime, so I think I'll be fine without youtube.
bahmboo wrote 20 hours 28 min ago:
Their recommendation engine has surfaced awesome obscure content I
would have never found otherwise so I value it.
Stuff like random recorded conference talks with 3 views. A super
enthusiast in Latvia.
It does recommend crap sometimes but on balance I like it.
kilroy123 wrote 20 hours 55 min ago:
Or just use Channel Surfer.
URI [1]: https://channelsurfer.tv
mattgreenrocks wrote 21 hours 12 min ago:
I love how passive aggressive the page becomes: "You turned off
recommendations...we won't show you anything else on here either!"
jameson wrote 18 hours 56 min ago:
It's somewhat deceiving practice IMO although it could simply be my
insecurity.
Along with the empty page, it says "Your watch history is off" in
bold then says "... change your setting ... to get the latest video
tailored to you"
It sounds as if I'm missing out on latest videos which, technically
true, but I wonder if that wording is necessary. It could've just
said "Update the settings here to get recommendations". But of
course for-profit companies need to make profit :)
reddalo wrote 21 hours 7 min ago:
Yeah exactly, they could have made their service useful by showing
your subscriptions instead. Yet, they decided to enshittify for
people who want choices.
mattgreenrocks wrote 21 hours 6 min ago:
Just a small reminder that we aren't wanted ;)
felooboolooomba wrote 21 hours 19 min ago:
Same for me. Godsend. It also switches off showing me a follow up
"short" after I watch the one I want to watch.
Cider9986 wrote 21 hours 24 min ago:
When I used to use YT, i used [1] , it was a great improvement.
If you think you can't quit youtube, I used to think that way, and
then i did it by deleting my account and using libredirect for
invidious. my usage went to just a few minutes or 0 per day.
URI [1]: https://untrap.app/
delis-thumbs-7e wrote 13 hours 33 min ago:
I have quit most other social media, but yt is still there. I give
this a try.
Cider9986 wrote 12 hours 49 min ago:
Good luck!
addaon wrote 18 hours 39 min ago:
> If you think you can't quit youtube
Just stop paying for Pro. I made it less than one day with the ads.
Cider9986 wrote 17 hours 51 min ago:
Why don't you have an adblocker for your whole browser?
addaon wrote 4 hours 13 min ago:
I do. I donât have a browser for my television, though.
Cider9986 wrote 51 min ago:
Makes sense. I wont name the ad-free modded youtube apps for
android tv that take out ads.
alexpotato wrote 21 hours 6 min ago:
I'm not particularly religious but I did give up Twitter for lent
as a test of my self control.
I highly recommend everyone occasionally do this with social media
as it was somewhat eyeopening how much better I felt overall. This
was mostly due to not being exposed to the doom scrolling you can
eventually get pulled into (despite efforts not to).
I did miss feeling like I was "plugged in" to the stream of
news/memes etc though.
YMMV but def recommend.
neucoas wrote 21 hours 17 min ago:
A nicer way that also works on mobile is turning the watch history
off. C
topspin wrote 21 hours 43 min ago:
This doesn't help when searching. I'm looking for specific things as
often as I'm clicking on recommendations.
What's needed is a global "Hide AI Dreck". Particularly the
overwhelming hoard of AI slide-shows masquerading as reviews.
mcv wrote 9 hours 0 min ago:
Yeah, just let me hide all the AI content. Far too often I stumble
onto something that looks interesting, and halfway through I
realise it's not really saying anything. It's just AI drivel
designed to capture my attention and hold it for a while.
codethief wrote 10 hours 47 min ago:
> What's needed is a global "Hide AI Dreck".
As a German, I couldn't think of a more appropriate usage of the
word "Dreck".
topspin wrote 1 hour 35 min ago:
It's a bit of a shame, given the brilliance of the the word
"dreck", that we've somehow ended up with "slop."
codeflo wrote 11 hours 32 min ago:
It's clear that YouTube doesn't want you to have much influence
over your feed. You can't even ban specific channels from being
shown to you, which would be the simplest thing to implement, and
other knobs that previously existed were silently removed.
Since Google does nothing that isn't based on metrics, we can
deduce that they have data to show that giving people settings to
focus the recommendations on what they want reduces total watch
time. We'll only get an AI filter if it turns out that AI slop
offends people so much that they disengage with YouTube altogether,
which outside of HN and similar bubbles, I don't yet see happening.
filoeleven wrote 6 hours 16 min ago:
> You can't even ban specific channels from being shown to you
Yes, you can. Click the video's 3-dot menu > Don't recommend
channel. Though I have noticed that this only blocks them from
showing up in the feed, not in the recommendations sidebar. I
also have to run uBlock to hide shorts, already-watched videos,
subscriber-only stuff...ain't saying the YT experience is good,
not by any stretch of the imagination.
bauble wrote 19 hours 58 min ago:
This isn't possible on Youtube right now. The automatic tools for
detecting LLM-generated content have far too many false positives.
And obviously no one is going to pay an army of people to curate
the content. The best thing right now is to rely on the reputation
of individual channels that you are personally familiar with.
Youtube's automatically applied label will be worse than useless
unless they've made some remarkable breakthrough, which I doubt.
They'd be better off just using creator-applied labels, and of
course if they would label anything that Youtube itself
contaminated with automatic translations or its ilk, that would be
good too.
harimau777 wrote 18 hours 14 min ago:
Maybe they could hand out lifetime bans to people who upload
untagged AI music? Obviously that wouldn't eliminate the problem,
but I could see it helping.
mcv wrote 8 hours 58 min ago:
I would support a law that requires all AI generated content to
be tagged, labeled, or watermarked as AI.
mschuster91 wrote 19 hours 8 min ago:
> This isn't possible on Youtube right now.
Well, theoretically you could build a service providing
blocklists, and users could subscribe to such blocklists with a
browser extension blocking accounts. Basically Sponsorblock or
Blocktogether for Twitter, with individual users flagging
accounts for slopaganda, content theft, rage / engagement bait
and other issues.
Unfortunately, it's way, way too likely that you'll run into some
sort of bot detection on Youtube's side and I've seen more than
enough horror stories about people getting fucked over and
getting their entire Google account perma-banned with no way of
recovery.
jens__jensen wrote 11 hours 32 min ago:
There is [1] that works pretty much like you have described.
URI [1]: https://aisloplist.com/
Applejinx wrote 21 hours 52 min ago:
Likewise. The page is youtube.com and then just /feed/ without
anything else there. That's the blank page, thank goodness they've
not ruined that yet :)
monocat wrote 21 hours 57 min ago:
This ^
chrsw wrote 22 hours 1 min ago:
I wonder why they're really doing this. It's definitely not for users'
benefit.
numpad0 wrote 19 hours 33 min ago:
It could be. They seem to be getting enormous amount of politics or
crypto related AI fake reels that real people fall for. They probably
do need means to control spams.
Willish42 wrote 22 hours 3 min ago:
I've been thinking for some time that it wouldn't be too hard to create
a third-party browser extension to crowdsource detection of channels
that use primarily AI-generated content (for example, the AI slop music
channels that put out multiple hour+ long genre or cover "playlists")
and hide them from suggestions or home feeds.
My guess is that Google sees some kind of trend in a contingent of
users preferring non-AI content and that surfacing AI content
misleadingly has a negative effect on retention / watch time, and/or
they're trying to get ahead of long-standing creators taking issue with
the platform surfacing AI content disproportionately on account of it
being excessively easier to upload in large quantities.
perarneng wrote 22 hours 9 min ago:
The dangers is videos that slip through the cracks, they get an
indirect seal of being non AI.
MrGrinchh wrote 22 hours 13 min ago:
this is a welcome change but if the creator doesn't disclose the use of
AI, how do they detect what is AI and what is not?
esafak wrote 20 hours 21 min ago:
Watermarking and machine learning.
nottorp wrote 11 hours 58 min ago:
s/machine learning/AI :)
dragontamer wrote 22 hours 13 min ago:
Can YouTube stop shoving terrible robot-English AI dubs down my throat?
I once looked up a German language test. It was auto-AI dubbed into
English. Ugggghhhhh..... There are also a lot of anime where the AI dub
essentially removes the music and sound effects and leaves only a
dreary AI voiceover. It's kinda crazy that Google is pushing this
feature out....
1e1a wrote 21 hours 37 min ago:
Even worse, sometimes it dubs ads, where there's no way to switch the
audio track and no way to see if it's being dubbed. This also makes
it look like the dubbed audio is the original audio from the ad,
which makes the advertiser look terrible.
Buildstarted wrote 21 hours 38 min ago:
try this.
URI [1]: https://gist.github.com/Buildstarted/c6b156ec95dc012c5f3dc5e...
bethekidyouwant wrote 21 hours 47 min ago:
Settings -> languages and then add German as one of the languages you
know and itâll never do this again
dragontamer wrote 18 hours 45 min ago:
I don't know German. That's why I'm looking up German language
tests.
sheept wrote 21 hours 48 min ago:
It's an option that individual channels can disable. Granted, it's
opt-out, but YouTube emailed creators several times about it well
before:
> Effective today, you can turn off automatic dubbing for your entire
channel in your Channel settings > Upload defaults > Advanced
settings > Automatic dubbing.
> Once auto-dubbing is enabled for your channel, while uploading a
new video, you will also have the option to turn off automatic
dubbing for that video.
So if you're seeing auto dubbing on a video by a creator who clearly
pays attention to YouTube's algorithm and should be aware of the
feature, then they deliberately opted to leave the option on,
probably thinking that it can't hurt.
Findecanor wrote 22 hours 0 min ago:
There are several Chrome extensions for turning that off
automatically, but I agree: you should not have to need extensions to
use YouTube.
Jubijub wrote 22 hours 0 min ago:
You can configure your preferred languages in YT settings, so it
doesnât do that. The setting is obscure, but itâs there
bethekidyouwant wrote 21 hours 47 min ago:
I donât know that Settings -> languages is obscure
rtsil wrote 21 hours 47 min ago:
That just tells it which languages to serve if the video has
multiple tracks, including Ai-generated ones. "Keep original
language" should be the default, or at least an opt-in.
And what about the atrocious title auto-translations? I'm in
France, my browser is set to accept EN-us and FR-fr as languages,
and my Youtube is in EN. And yet it keeps auto-translating the
titles of some French videos. And the translation is so awful, it
mistranslates many things and translates literally some obvious
puns, that I can't believe they're using Gemini for this. They must
have repurposed a 5-year old version of Google Translate. It is not
consistent either, the titles are translated in the home page, but
not in the channel's page.
elashri wrote 21 hours 52 min ago:
The problem is that it doesn't even respect this choice. My native
language is not English and most of the videos in this languages
will be auto transcript to English. Even the last time I changed
both the language and country and YouTube still managed to auto
transcript to English.
The solution is a simple toggle to turn it off, not pushing it to
our throat.
chrsw wrote 22 hours 4 min ago:
There's no way to switch back to the original audio track? I agree
you shouldn't have to but I'm wondering if it's possible.
retired wrote 21 hours 37 min ago:
Not if you Airplay to your TV. I get random foreign languages when
I watch English speaking YouTubers. No way to enable subtitles or
change the language. It's a known bug according to the internet.
johneth wrote 21 hours 58 min ago:
You can change the audio track back to the original.
Not sure if it remembers your preference, though, so if it doesn't
that probably grates.
jeroenhd wrote 21 hours 46 min ago:
It doesn't remember my preference. Or rather, it seems to
remember me picking a specific language, and then loads the dub
in that language next time I click a video. It doesn't remember
"don't duh videos".
oblio wrote 21 hours 48 min ago:
It does remember it. At least on Firefox/Linux.
pnw wrote 22 hours 17 min ago:
Maybe they could fix their moderation and appeal process before adding
a half-baked feature like this which is certain to cause more issues
requiring moderation?
eclipticplane wrote 22 hours 18 min ago:
Now label AI ads and let us filter them out.
Leading up to tax day, every ad was a terrible AI slop Turbotax ad.
loganc2342 wrote 22 hours 20 min ago:
I can already imagine this wonât be perfect (false negatives / false
positives, for one thing) but this seems like a huge step in the right
direction. Even just giving the âAIâ label a more prominent spot
than the description is a big deal, particularly for those who are less
tech-savvy than your average HN user. My mom, for instance, can watch
your one video thatâs entirely AI-generated and not bat an eye, but
then watch another video thatâs clearly real and say it looks
âoff.â Say what you will about whether AI-generated content is
valid or whether it should be allowed on the platform at all, but more
transparency is only a good thing.
burkaman wrote 22 hours 20 min ago:
I wonder if they will try to do this for songs in YouTube Music. I've
stopped using their auto-generated playlists/recommendations/whatever
because it kept playing AI-generated songs.
djyde wrote 21 hours 13 min ago:
AI-generated music should be hard to detect
willy_k wrote 14 hours 23 min ago:
Harder to detect manually compared to image or video, but not
necessarily harder to detect with another model. If itâs
AI-generated MIDI (I have no idea if thatâs the, or even a, way
itâs done) there are probably patterns in the output similar to
the way there are in generated text, but if itâs actually
generating the audio itself then that should be pretty distinct at
the finer-grained level that a model could analyze it at.
dwa3592 wrote 22 hours 24 min ago:
This is awesome. I am building something similar for writing -
URI [1]: https://trulytyped.com
ge96 wrote 22 hours 26 min ago:
One field I was wondering about. There are a lot of channels/videos
where they take movie summaries, feed it into an AI to generate TTS,
graphics... I hate these videos but I'm also like damn good job trying
to capitalize on that, why don't I do it kind of thing. I don't have
that money making drive/hustle. I need to.
Some are funny some SORA, Neural Viz
techtivist wrote 22 hours 26 min ago:
Honestly, this whole AI-labeling approach seems to be the opposite
approach to take. Instead why not authenticate genuine "non-AI
content". Work together with the hardware and software layer with an
open approach, building on top of contend id. I appreciate the privacy
implications here are complex, and Google is dubious on using any
tracking/fingerprinting technology for its self-serving and
privacy-invading motivations, but an open cross-industry foundation
owning and operating it may be a first step?
kmfrk wrote 21 hours 49 min ago:
That's basically C2PA: [1] .
I'm not super optimistic about it, and last I saw, Apple wasn't a
part of it either.
URI [1]: https://c2pa.org
antran22 wrote 22 hours 30 min ago:
Letâs use probabilistic models to find the probability of something
being the output of another probabilistic model
gitpusher wrote 22 hours 36 min ago:
Interesting. Although it seems they are focusing primarily on detecting
AI generated video and imagery. But most of the annoying slop videos I
come across seem like they are using real footage/video clips. It's
just edited together by AI and there's an AI narrator reading an AI
script. I wonder if they'll do anything to guard against this type of
junk
sunaookami wrote 22 hours 37 min ago:
Original article:
URI [1]: https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/improving-ai-labels-viewe...
samspenc wrote 21 hours 32 min ago:
This should be the original link since its the official announcement
and has more concrete info, hope mod(s) can update.
dang wrote 21 hours 30 min ago:
Ok, updated above with the other link in the toptext.
jonbaer wrote 22 hours 38 min ago:
Would really be nice if they did the same with their ads, but don't see
that happening
zamadatix wrote 22 hours 9 min ago:
The ads are labeled, much more so than the AI generated content.
dcc wrote 2 hours 48 min ago:
No they need to label ads that are AI. Youtube is flooded with scam
ads made with AI and they consistently ignore reports. They even
pretend to not be able to do anything about ads impersonating
people to promote crypto scams.
whalesalad wrote 22 hours 42 min ago:
Thank fuck. There is SO much garbage on YT lately which amounts to a
powerpoint deck with ai audio overlaid.
abeyer wrote 22 hours 18 min ago:
Unfortunately I'm not sure this will affect those at all...it's
specifically for "realistic" AI use according to all the quotes. I'm
not sure narration or illustration/slides generated by AI would be
covered at all in that case.
Dylan16807 wrote 19 hours 52 min ago:
Anything more competent than Microsoft Sam counts as realistic in
my book. If their definition excludes narration that would be
weird.
Their detection might not look at audio right now though.
abeyer wrote 18 hours 38 min ago:
I suppose, but I guess the quality of voice narration I've heard
is still closer to "realistic robot" than anything.
Dylan16807 wrote 14 hours 0 min ago:
The flaws can be pretty subtle sometimes. I don't want any
subtlety. If I'm not hit in the face with a brick over how
mechanical it is, put a disclaimer.
whalesalad wrote 17 hours 37 min ago:
When a segment is about a place or thing with a particular name
and the pronunciation completely shifts from one to the next
itâs a big annoyance.
p1necone wrote 22 hours 42 min ago:
Donning my tinfoil hat for a moment, YouTube is in a position here to
simultaneously iterate on automatic AI video detection while also
working out how to make AI generated video that's impossible to detect.
smrtinsert wrote 22 hours 0 min ago:
Why is that tinfoil? That's just good business?
mkhalil wrote 22 hours 19 min ago:
> "while also working out how to make AI generated video that's
impossible to detect."
what gives you that impression?
Google is spends millions of dollars researching and implementing
SynthID [0]; ensuring all videos generated have a watermark to ensure
they can be detected. As well as using SynthID to detect AI-generated
videos, which is what I am guessing they are using @ YT to detect and
label the AI videos.
I am far from a Google or AI fanboy, closer to an admiring hater, but
I just don't see how they are making AI generated video impossible to
detect if they are going out of the way to ensure SynthID /AI
watermarks are present in any video generated on the platform.
unless you mean impossible to detect by human eyes; but if that's the
case, so is everyone else.
except everyone else is NOT spending resources on research for
watermarking and keep the detection algorithms ahead of the curve.
AmbroseBierce wrote 22 hours 7 min ago:
Yeah, like Google doesn't know other hundreds of companies are also
generating videos and will without the slightest shred of doubt
will use reinforced learning to bypass this detection, meaning
directly asking Google's AI if a picture they modified is AI or not
to improve their algorithms, they know vouching for video is as
useful as vouching for AI generated texts, zero.
scoofy wrote 22 hours 20 min ago:
I think that "impossible to detect" is not something realistic if
camera manufacturers are willing to start adding encryption
signatures to their cameras outputs and are willing to vouch for
them.
I realize this would still allow fakes to be presented by governments
in all likelihood, but not everyone.
Nasrudith wrote 10 hours 51 min ago:
Why do we keep on seeing that elementary misconception?
Cryptographic verification != reality of the underlying data fed to
it! Plus vouching for hardware that is in consumer hands? There is
the gaping analog hole of 'recording' arbitrary data streams. All
that system would do is make it easier to deanonmyize speech.
p1necone wrote 21 hours 43 min ago:
You still ultimately have the analogue hole here - pull the camera
apart, splice your own hardware somewhere between the sensor and
the thing that adds the signatures (or in front of the sensor).
7jjjjjjj wrote 20 hours 37 min ago:
Or just straight up point the camera at a computer monitor,
without even trying to hide it. Most of the security camera
footage online is already uploaded this way.
p1necone wrote 15 hours 48 min ago:
I intentionally didn't say that because I feel like people
might dismiss that with "oh but you can tell the difference
with sufficient analysis etc" whereas literally sending data
directly through the same path as the real sensor would be
potentially less detectable (or more, if the sensor itself has
some kind of noticeable fingerprint)
_verandaguy wrote 21 hours 52 min ago:
Leica started doing this a few years ago in response to the first
wave of AI images[0]. Other, bigger manufacturers (Nikon, Canon,
Sony as well I believe) have also joined, though with less fanfare.
Adobe is in the loop.
As someone with a passing interest in infosec and cryptography, I'm
sceptical of the long-term viability of this kind of product; it
only takes one person successfully extracting a signing key to
undermine the entire project.
[0]
https://leica-camera.com/en-int/news/partnership-greater-trust-digi
tal-photography-leica-and-content-authenticity-initiative
scoofy wrote 21 hours 44 min ago:
Yes, you're correct about private keys getting exposed, but it's
better than nothing. I suspect though, even after key exposure
there may be a way to make new private keys so that compromised
keys have a known point when they are compromised, which makes
public how much skepticism we should all have about authenticity.
I just think there is a world of difference between "certainty"
and "plausibility" when it comes to videos on the internet. Yes,
state actors might circumvent it, and skepticism should remain,
but there is a world of difference between North Korea trying to
convince me of some political scandal, and Pepsi Co trying to
convince me that someone I trust loves Pepsi.
Gigachad wrote 21 hours 42 min ago:
Cameras have a very long lifespan. People will still be using
those cameras 20 years after the keys for their model get
leaked.
scoofy wrote 21 hours 38 min ago:
And they will also get firmware updates.
Gigachad wrote 21 hours 4 min ago:
I currently use a 2008 Fujifilm camera and a 2018 Sony. The
Fujifilm doesnât even have a firmware update mechanism,
and the Sony camera doesnât get updated anymore. These
devices are rarely connected to the internet and never go
obsolete so they get used until they break.
There might be a specialised line of cameras for forensics
that signs the output and has lidar to detect when the
camera is pointed at a screen, but the average person
wonât have a camera with this kind of crypto. It would
just be too easy for hackers to extract the keys from.
himata4113 wrote 21 hours 54 min ago:
wouldn't that just encourage monopolistic behavior and lockdown of
these devices?
they're already locked down as-is.
Ukv wrote 22 hours 4 min ago:
Pointing the camera at a screen could potentially evade that.
scoofy wrote 21 hours 58 min ago:
Right, but my point is that a video of a screen should be less
believable than the source video insofar as verifying legitimacy.
Ukv wrote 21 hours 47 min ago:
I feel it wouldn't be too difficult to get a social-media video
to look convincing enough even with just a regular camera and
monitor, at least after compression (if end users aren't served
raw footage directly, and instead trust the attestation of the
site).
scoofy wrote 21 hours 39 min ago:
Right, my point is that this should default to
"untrustworthy." The idea is that a camera would at the very
least include a timestamp and camera type in the signature.
That signature should usually be reproducible when being
filmed by another camera (these signatures can be part of the
physical image). This should mean that a cameras filming
screens would have multiple ways to show the images are not
legitimate (as something as simple of shadows not matching
time of day could show the video is illegitimate).
Retr0id wrote 19 hours 21 min ago:
What you're describing is a watermark, not a signature
scoofy wrote 18 hours 11 min ago:
What I'm describing is a hidden watermark that contains a
signature.
Retr0id wrote 17 hours 58 min ago:
A signature over what?
scoofy wrote 16 hours 33 min ago:
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signat...
Retr0id wrote 9 hours 25 min ago:
I'm familiar with the concept. A digital signature
signs a message. What message are you signing?
scoofy wrote 3 hours 27 min ago:
If I were creating a verification system, I'd
include a Timestamp, camera used, and UUID. If I
were selling products to news teams, I'd likely
include fields that the firm wanted included like
name of company, and if applicable, gps location.
Retr0id wrote 21 hours 53 min ago:
What if you can't tell it's a video of a screen?
Ajedi32 wrote 22 hours 18 min ago:
Who posts raw output from cameras anywhere? This doesn't seem
useful outside some niche use-cases (like security camera footage).
At a minimum just about every recording is going to be
re-compressed for streaming.
mapontosevenths wrote 21 hours 55 min ago:
Synthid and the like survive compression and decent quality
rerecording.
Ajedi32 wrote 5 hours 7 min ago:
Synthid is a watermark which indicates the video is
AI-generated, not a digital signature indicating it's real.
Completely different use case and threat model.
I'm not aware of any secure digital signature schemes that
don't require the thing they signed to be bit-for-bit identical
to pass verification. There are perceptual hashing algorithms
that could theoretically be used to build such a scheme, but
such hashes are not second preimage resistant, so someone could
create a modified video that still passes signature
verification.
scoofy wrote 21 hours 56 min ago:
I don't think it needs do be raw output. I'm pretty sure that
signatures can exist within image and sound outputs that are
reproducible when changing to other formats.
AmbroseBierce wrote 22 hours 8 min ago:
I bet the cameras' companies will start automatically uploading
the real footage to their servers for attestation, and allow the
camera owners to get those links, so people will just add that
link on YouTube or whatever and say "See, its real, Sony vouches
for it", heck maybe they will make their buyers to sign up with
YouTube and do it for them.
Ajedi32 wrote 5 hours 0 min ago:
Perhaps that could work in certain situations, but you don't
even necessarily need digital signatures for that. A link to a
reputable news site claiming they've verified the footage as
real would be good enough in like 95% of cases, people just
don't bother to check.
You'd also need close to 100% adoption for this to be
effective, otherwise people will just assume the fakes were
recorded with one of the cameras that doesn't have that
feature, or that they didn't bother to upload the raw footage
anywhere.
prirun wrote 21 hours 39 min ago:
Only if you're paying them
AmbroseBierce wrote 21 hours 38 min ago:
Attention is valuable these days, so making people go to
their websites for people to check if something is real is
good for them, its people they can try to sell more cameras
(or phones) and all that.
exe34 wrote 22 hours 0 min ago:
They can attest pictures of my hairy pendulous ballsack.
AmbroseBierce wrote 21 hours 53 min ago:
Joking and all but sexting would benefit from this
technology, if it can vouch about the time, GPS location and
email address of the owner then the receiver can have some
certainty about the pic (if the sender decides to share such
attestation link/info, of course)
thfuran wrote 22 hours 0 min ago:
How on top of security do you think all the camera
manufacturers are going to be? That is, how long until people
can sign videos that were not, in fact, shot with their camera?
AmbroseBierce wrote 21 hours 56 min ago:
Proving that you were able to upload something that is not
real would go viral so it's very attractive to people to
share such findings, meaning it would not last long, then
they fix it and that's it, specially because they can require
you to upgrade your camera's firmware if you want to keep
using their attestation service.
pixl97 wrote 21 hours 31 min ago:
Depends on what kind of compromise occurs. Hardware level
key loss isn't easy, if possible at all to fix.
paulddraper wrote 22 hours 15 min ago:
Yeah Iâm not sure this makes sense when images are getting
their third ifunny watermark.
tombert wrote 22 hours 38 min ago:
Isn't this literally how GANNs are trained?
hungryhobbit wrote 22 hours 40 min ago:
"AI generated video that's impossible to detect" is already something
many companies are working on; it's hardly Google-specific.
nicce wrote 22 hours 34 min ago:
It already is quite impossible. Just generate something decent with
lower quality. Then maybe take screen recording of the output.
Voila.
justinator wrote 22 hours 27 min ago:
Then "low-quality for no reason in year the 2026 and beyond where
phones shoot at 8k" become part of the heuristics.
oblio wrote 21 hours 46 min ago:
I find it super ironic that we're basically here: [1] now. The
90s and 00s tech people would be very disappointed :-))
URI [1]: https://xkcd.com/1683/
Ukv wrote 22 hours 0 min ago:
Would be a fairly weak heuristic, with most social media
images/videos already being like that.
justinator wrote 21 hours 13 min ago:
Being pedantic for no reason is one of the heuristics I use
to judge how annoying yn users are
FloorEgg wrote 22 hours 35 min ago:
YouTube scale is Google specific
Raed667 wrote 22 hours 43 min ago:
I'm willing to bet this is just an easily bypassable SynthID check
650REDHAIR wrote 22 hours 43 min ago:
Isnât YouTube applying weird AI processing to shorts?
So all shorts will be labeled?
Maybe Iâm not the target audience for Google products anymore?
I have to use Yandex and DDG for search results now.
Gemini has insane throttling so Iâve just embraced local models for
most things and the occasional API call to whatever frontier model I
think will work best.
YouTube search is abysmal and new content is 98% consumerism BS.
My Gmail is mostly spam and mailing lists I canât seem to get off of
with the occasional scam attempt thrown in.
Guess Iâm just ranting to rant at this point. I grew up online and
now the internet feels weird and I think I might be âover itâ.
Dwedit wrote 22 hours 8 min ago:
I think the "weird AI processing" might have been someone
misunderstanding a compression codec. When laypeople see anything
advanced, it's always called AI no matter what it actually is, and
that's the word that spreads around.
650REDHAIR wrote 15 hours 33 min ago:
Iâm not going to dox my YT channels, but I do know the difference
between the two and a year ago YT admitted to automatic AI
âenhancementsâ.
Iâve also seen the trend of TV clip slop using AI filters to I
assume get by automatic copyright flagging/removal/de-monetization.
URI [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250822-youtube-is-usi...
apercu wrote 22 hours 43 min ago:
"Please prove your content was created by a flawed biological
organism."
floxy wrote 22 hours 32 min ago:
Seems better than the alternative: "This content was created by a
machine, but being pushed/promoted by a flawed money-grubbing
biological organism".
simlevesque wrote 22 hours 44 min ago:
AI versus AI, the final faceoff. Who's gonna win? Probably not us.
GuinansEyebrows wrote 22 hours 17 min ago:
Whoever wins, we lose.
GodelNumbering wrote 22 hours 47 min ago:
I hope their detector is better than the typical 'AI detection in text'
services. False negatives are bad, false positives are worse as some
creators could lose their source of income.
MarioMan wrote 13 hours 31 min ago:
At least for now, YouTube honors the uploaderâs label of whether or
not the content was AI generated. Only when itâs left unset do they
do any automatic labeling. And those labels can be overridden
manually by the uploader if they get it wrong.
numpad0 wrote 22 hours 48 min ago:
> âIf a creator doesnât specify whether or not they used AI, but
our systems detect significant photorealistic AI use, we will now
automatically apply a label,â YouTube said.
> YouTube creators who believe their content was incorrectly flagged
as AI-generated can modify the disclosure status using the YouTube
Studio tool.
What's the general overall state of AI-based AI flagging tools
development? They seemed to have absurd false positive rates of not
even 50% while it's obvious to whom it is obvious, no matter who or how
it's done.
anigbrowl wrote 16 hours 19 min ago:
That's not that helpful. For example there's thousands of
'psychology' videos with descriptive bait titles like 'the psychology
of people who don't click on video recommendations' which are
AI-screipted, narrated, and animated. If you look at the channels the
same creator will have hundreds of videos that are micro-targeted to
absurdity, like 'the psychology of women who spend too much time on
youtube' or 'the psychology of people who don't watch big sports
games'. Most of these seem to have tens or hundreds of thousands of
views. Maybe the views are botted as well, but clop producers have
every incentive to spend a few hundred $ in tokens and generate 50 or
100 new videos to just blanket the recommender engine and shut out
regular content that takes time and effort to produce.
I've drastically cut my use of YouTube (even though there are
creators I like and wish to support) because I am so tired of wading
through all the junk.
lokar wrote 4 hours 28 min ago:
Check out the hundreds of slop feynman videos
stillnotalone wrote 22 hours 49 min ago:
This could backfire.. im thinking of "real" videos with elements of AI
in them. Those elements might not get the video flairs as an AI video
and people will get fooled
andrewstuart wrote 22 hours 50 min ago:
I really wish there was a button to voluntarily say / tag your own
content as AI assisted.
The assumption that users will always hide this results in flaky auto
detection.
spogbiper wrote 22 hours 27 min ago:
Your wish has been granted -
URI [1]: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491
floxy wrote 22 hours 53 min ago:
That's great news. Hopefully there will be a filter to allow or
disallow AI video on your homepage/feed.
teiferer wrote 13 hours 37 min ago:
Where exactly do you want to draw the line?
Tubelord wrote 19 hours 10 min ago:
If they don't it would be a relatively easy browser plugin to make.
themafia wrote 20 hours 41 min ago:
I wish the same thing for the "AI dubbed" videos.
I find them to be flatly insulting to the original content. I'd
rather hear the creators original voice and read machine translated
subtitles.
geerlingguy wrote 20 hours 38 min ago:
The individual creator can turn that off in settings â however,
it was enabled automatically for everyone, and creators have to
know to turn it off...
thinkingtoilet wrote 21 hours 40 min ago:
The filter is what is key. If they label all AI videos but still
serve me AI slop as the first response, then it doesn't matter if
it's labeled at all.
fugalfervor wrote 22 hours 16 min ago:
I really doubt that google will implement that filter. But I
guarantee it'll be added soon to revanced and other patched youtube
apps.
epolanski wrote 22 hours 19 min ago:
No joke, I would pay for this more than i do for premium.
Half my feed or suggestions are AI crap.
Sadly I have lots of niche interests (various history topics, or
engineering) and there's an endless amount of channels and videos
that are entirely AI generated.
And it takes you a while to catch them, because they are well done,
even the narrator is fake. But then I realize I'm just watching an AI
dramatized summary and I get mad at Youtube.
whywhywhywhy wrote 22 hours 32 min ago:
They could use the same data to pay AI posters less and push their
content more. Which will get you a promotion at Google.
varjag wrote 22 hours 42 min ago:
Sounds like a premium feature!
dalmo3 wrote 22 hours 24 min ago:
Yes, like filtering out shorts.
/s
filoeleven wrote 6 hours 0 min ago:
Shorts were what made me install uBlock, even though I was a paid
subscriber. uBlock is so handy at removing shorts,
already-watched recommendations, etc. They keep making the
interface worse.
I dumped my subscription because of it. If I have to use an
ad-blocker to make the site useable, and the ad-blocker already
blocks the ads which was the reason I subscribed in the first
place...no point in paying anymore. Fuck 'em.
dylan604 wrote 21 hours 59 min ago:
How about ones making a stupid video of SO question/answers
floxy wrote 22 hours 41 min ago:
Honestly, that might get me to subscribe.
650REDHAIR wrote 22 hours 42 min ago:
Create your own browser extension to block them!
postalrat wrote 22 hours 40 min ago:
Some searches might have 99% videos I want filtered out.
schmiddim wrote 22 hours 50 min ago:
Can't await this checkbox
Imustaskforhelp wrote 22 hours 53 min ago:
Finally a decent change by Youtube! Great job Youtube but overall
unsure about the situation at Google itself and what Google itself is
doing.
I do overall wish if Youtube could've been spinned independent from
Google given there might be some conflict of interests, Youtube still
tries to push a lot of AI slop towards the creators and sometimes even
the viewers perhaps because of google, but seems like Youtube has
pushed back against some aspects of the AI slop.
the thing I am wondering is how easy it might be to break that bypass
and also about the false positives. A lot of creators recently got
demonitized for apparently not much of a reason aside from false
positives which is incredibly sad if one's livelihood depended on it.
These people end up taking it on twitter from my understanding but it
only really sometimes end up working if enough people watch the twitter
or get attention overall on the topic so I hope that youtube works
towards its (creators support??) side too.
asveikau wrote 22 hours 55 min ago:
The idea that you can automatically detect AI generated content seems
misguided. It will make mistakes. I think I've heard of things being
wrongfully tagged as AI generated on other platforms.
tencentshill wrote 21 hours 48 min ago:
So far all it does to the video is add a small tag in the corner. It
doesn't affect rankings or monetization. A false positive might annoy
some subscribers at worst.
Gigachad wrote 21 hours 39 min ago:
No one will click a video that has the ai tag though.
Forgeties79 wrote 20 hours 10 min ago:
I mean this with all sincerity: so what?
If people donât want to watch AI content, they should be able
to avoid it. Just as a vegan should be able to know if a dish is
appropriate for them. Besides: if you have to blatantly deceive
people into watching your videos when they otherwise would choose
not to, what are you even doing? And yes I understand people
already do that. But we should not go out of our way to enable
that. Plus the moment you are perceived as not disclosing that,
you risk getting burned by someone online and facing much
harsher, longer term consequences. Reputation still matters to a
degree.
Ultimately Iâm not sure we should be advocating for opacity in
consumer products.
sonar_un wrote 10 hours 55 min ago:
I think that if a video gets accidentally flagged as AI, it
might signal to the creator to create better content. If your
content is flagged, then it must be of a quality that is not
discernable from slop.
Gigachad wrote 8 hours 49 min ago:
Not really. These AI detectors are not quality detectors.
I've seen real artists who do quality work have their old
pieces they drew way before the invention of gen ai get
flagged as AI. It's very detrimental to their business and
brand.
It seems like the Google method here is identifying their
synthid markings on content. Which won't cause false
positives but only catches content from tools that actively
adds this mark.
Gigachad wrote 19 hours 58 min ago:
I'm just saying there is monetary penalty to having this tag
applied, contrary to the parent comment. So mistakenly applying
it to a real video would be very detrimental to the creator.
Forgeties79 wrote 19 hours 17 min ago:
Oh youâre talking about specifically if itâs mistakenly
applied, my bad I missed that
floxy wrote 22 hours 46 min ago:
I suppose it all depends on the false positive and false negative
rates. But better to start now, before AI ruins the platform.
URI [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20090418141450/http://www.theatl...
luckylion wrote 22 hours 36 min ago:
_before_? youtube is like the top 1000 creators / influencers /
celebrities, 5% actual videos, and the rest is slop of various
types for me.
The search is entirely gone and will straight up not list regular
content that was made by humans, but it will absolutely surface the
cheap AI-voices that can't say HVAC fluently.
Makes sense for youtube, too. For the average person, that seems to
be enough, the ads are the same value, and people who dislike that
probably have a large overlap with people who use adblockers and
don't impulsively spend money on the latest browser-game, miracle
cure for cancer, or financial advice from random scammers.
asveikau wrote 22 hours 14 min ago:
You and I must be watching a very different YouTube. I don't see
a lot of AI generated stuff in my recommendations or search.
My teenage daughter gets served a lot of iffy stuff with the
ElevenLabs Adam voice though. Though sometimes I suspect some of
that content is written manually by people who may not have great
English speaking voices, so they add generated audio.
tredre3 wrote 22 hours 27 min ago:
If you only visit youtube.com logged out in a private window,
obviously it's going to show you what's the most popular. What
else should it be doing?
Personally I never see those top 1000 creators / influencers /
celebrities. If anything I find the recommendation algorithm too
tuned to my topics of interest so it rarely surfaces new things.
Agreed on the search being less than useless, though.
Vachyas wrote 16 hours 34 min ago:
Agreed. Youtube recommendations are genuinely great for me.
Most of the time I'll be recommended so many more good videos
than I have time for, that my "watch later" playlist only keeps
growing.
Compared with, say, Netflix, where even though I've been rating
everything I watch on there for 5+ yrs, the recommendations
still barely feel personalized (if anything, it feels like it
personalizes which premade "top list" to show me, but not the
titles within them...but it does personalize the cover
art/thumbnail, lol).
Sohcahtoa82 wrote 19 hours 29 min ago:
I'm of the opinion that people who get recommended constant
slop are doing something very wrong, likely going out of their
way to anonymize themselves as much as possible, then being all
Surprised Pikachu when YouTube can't figure out what kind of
content they like, so they get recommended the lowest common
denominator popular stuff.
My feed is all channels I'm subscribed to or content from other
creators that make similar content. I don't get Mr Beast or
any other the other crap that people complain about.
intrasight wrote 19 hours 38 min ago:
I don't only get to YouTube.com from a Google search and that
on a browser that I'm not logged into - so it only shows me
things that I searched for.
floxy wrote 22 hours 29 min ago:
Fair enough
Bender wrote 22 hours 51 min ago:
I know they can identify them because if I click on one by mistake
that's all I get until I go to about:blank, close YT tab, clear
cache, close browser, run bleachbit and start browser. I never log
into their site.
nemomarx wrote 22 hours 55 min ago:
> Under YouTubeâs guidelines, creators will still be required to
manually disclose when they use realistic AI. But starting this week,
it also will roll out a new internal system to help identify
AI-generated content. âIf a creator doesnât specify whether or not
they used AI, but our systems detect significant photorealistic AI use,
we will now automatically apply a label,â YouTube said.
detect how? synthid is the only obvious one I can think of. user
reports would make some sense. But what's the sota for ai detection?
RugnirViking wrote 9 hours 51 min ago:
what makes you think that isnt just synthid? didnt anthropic and
openai adopt it?
duskwuff wrote 22 hours 15 min ago:
I don't know about SOTA, but Sight Engine (sightengine.com) has AI
image detection which seems pretty solid. It can even identify
specific image generators.
DIR <- back to front page