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?
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.
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.
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?
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)
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?
> 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.
We will find out shortly? YouTube is the one saying they are going to implement this:
"If a creator doesn’t specify whether or not they used AI, but our systems detect significant photorealistic AI use, we will now automatically apply a label."
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"
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.
The graveyards are filled with people who had the right-of-way, who died knowing they were in the right.
And even if it's a slow speed accident, who cares about being right if you get a disability in the process? It is safer to let them through so they don't plow into you when you have to suddenly stop.
The only reason to LARP as a highway cop is just ego.
Sure, you can hide and worry about protecting yourself in an ever more dangerous world, or join people like him and me and take a stand against bad behavior. If enough people do it, it will make a difference.
No it won't. You're not "taking a stand". This isn't a bar fight. You're mistaking responsible defensiveness for cowardice, and passive-aggressiveness for civil courage.
There is zero chance they'll recognise your dominance, let alone moral superiority, and walk away changed from a teaching moment. They're not even seeing you as a person. They only see your car as one more obstacle among so many other "idiots", and it's quite probable you're provoking only more reckless behaviour.
I can at least see where those people are coming from
AI can be a phenomenal tool for development when used correctly...
... But there is also now a trend on GitHub of low to no-skill individuals going around spamming garbage work in order to play the numbers game for their resume. When asked why they did something or to change it, they just act as a middleman for the robot and show no understanding or initiative.
So I can understand how it's become a turnoff for some people. I used to think it was a dumb rule until a project I work on started being spammed with said junk PRs
Sure, the mods were not always the best on SO. But even if you did ask a question, you had to deal with a userbase that was more pedantic and judgy than Reddit. Usually you would get an answer if it was obvious, other times you would have to defend your question against some guy whose newfound obsession was whether you had an XY Problem. Or who was personally offended you weren't using whatever the fad library of the day was (e.g. jQuery).
> Against some volunteer who's encountering their fourteenth clear XY problem of the day.
Fourteenth clear as imagined in their head XY problem of the day.
By far most of the "XY problems" I saw, on SO or elsewhere, were actually "XY problem problems" - i.e. a responder having so limited imagination and character (or, to be charitable, just running very low on energy and focus), that upon coming across a question they couldn't comprehend, they would assume the person asking the question must be confused instead.
If it isn't fun to do, and simply causes frustration, that hypothetical person constructed in the comment could just step away for the day.
I get that dealing with low quality questions wasn't great, but imagine spending an afternoon researching a weird thing using some tools your organization mandates, writing it up, only for that person to skim it and just assume you really wanted to do $otherThing.
Again: the "less abrasive alternative" is built off the labor and knowledge of those abrasive folks. They're a large part of the reason it knows what to less-abrasively suggest.
Being book-smart or correct is only half of the skill in sharing knowledge. While often overlooked, the voice in which the knowledge is delivered matters.
This is arguably more important than the the actual depth knowledge, given how many people have flocked to soft-spoken random text generators in comparison.
For better or for worse, people are cursed with ego, and we need to account for that when communicating with others. It is a failing of the platform (and a tragedy, because it is healthier to learn from a human) that it was unable to foster a positive environment.
> This is arguably more important than the the actual depth knowledge, given how many people have flocked to soft-spoken random text generators in comparison.
People flock to heroin, too.
> Being book-smart or correct is only half of the skill in sharing knowledge. While often overlooked, the voice in which the knowledge is delivered matters.
This. And it's even starting to be a problem with LLMs - noticed that with Claude and Gemini this week.
Yes, I am specifically asking if it's possible to do X with Y. No, I'm not interested in how to do ${unrelated except for name} thing A with Y, or ${manual variant of X} by hand to ${subset of Y}, nor do I want to use tool Q instead. I specifically want to know how to do X with Y, for reasons that are my own and borne of frustration with Y being a toy I'm trying to use for productive work, which apparently means pushing it past its operational envelope, but I have a deadline...
Closing a question as a duplicate because there is already a question with similar wording (but assuming an entirely different tech stack, architecture, coding style, and goal) is a frequent enough experience that it became shorthand for the site's problems.
There was kind of a fatal mis-match between the questions being asked and the intended kind of questions that were being answered. The actual asks were often incomplete diagnostics of the questioner's current problem, frequently focusing on the wrong thing (because if you don't have the full knowledge of the thing you're going to be prone to incorrect assumptions of the diagnosis). SO's intent, though, was a more mathematical "here's the question, here's the programming concept that explains it" so you get the best explanation of how a linked list works under a completely unrelated problem. Which is fine, but the site's culture and design only partially acknowledged the disconnect.
The whole site developed a reputation of being something approximating the reverse of the comments under recipes that substitute lard for cream and wonder why their cake tastes funny. Lots of questions of "How do I implement this functionality in Y? We can't change our tech stack because of other factors, so it has to be Y" questions answered by "If you just use Z instead you wouldn't have these problems" and "closed as a duplicate of this question for how to implement the non-Y version" when there was a perfectly fine way to do it in Y.
In my experience, the problem wasn't the user base, it was the moderators. I would be getting useful answers (or questions) from the users, when out of the blue the moderators would shut my question down for some reason. I once complained to the management (literally), explaining why I thought the moderator was wrong, and got my question restored. But that was too much like work.
X in an XY problem is almost always possible, like "how do we make ship canals and harbors with nukes" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare) or "I'd like to amputate my hand to fix a hangnail".
> decades-outdated "scientific software" [still DOS prompts, in mid-2000s?!?!] to perform calculations in support of since-disproven theories (mostly: his).
Most computational chemistry is still done on the command line using decades old codes.
Gaussian is from the 70s, and it's still a major workhorse for small molecules. CP2K is from 2000 and is still popular for solid state.
It's actually a big barrier to entry in the field, because in addition to learning theory, you also have to know the Linux command line and whatnot
Around the same time, decades ago (and until recently), my father (a post-tension concrete expert, P.E.), was still using an early 1980s DOS program to design 8- & 9-figure government facilities.
I guess the span deflection/moment/&c calculations don't really change much (i.e. get fancy) on brutalist state buildings. But he did grow up hand-drafting blueprints (I remember the ink/smell from my childhood) and did have a regular 3D/CAD technologist for fancier designs (he despised architects' more-esoteric "Vision").
----
Wouldn't much of modern chemistry rapidly be integrating/upgrading within python environments (e.g. AlphaFold) on much-faster equipment? I know a few PhDs that are blown away by recent advances in dissertation-level output from machines — in days vs. entire graduate programs – and even walked the graduation stage with (now-Nobel Laureate) John, an Alphafold co-publisher... obviously his perspective is unique/polar.
> If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things
How do you explain the creative works of writing, music, and art that existed in the millennia of human history between the Mesopotamians and the Enlightenment era?
They tended to be solo productions, or sponsored by aristocratic patrons. Anyone suggesting that we could create movies, TV, music, or games on the scale we do today, without copyright, does not seem worth taking seriously.
I support copyright reform, but that history has a large portion of "get lucky while sucking-up to the local rich dudes for a patron", which... isn't ideal either.
The original statement was about there being little incentive to create a work you don't "own"
Difficulty in copying is irrelevant to owning it.
Moreover, this does not address music or spoken word. A pre-copyright musician can just listen to a piece and play it in the next town over. A poet or storyteller can just memorize a work and retell it.
>> previous comment said "Copying was prohibitively expensive."
I think this statement does have important truth value in it! Copying books used to be done by hand (someone writing manually). Then printing press came, which lead to problems. And that is when copyright concept and law was created!
PS: IANAL and nor a historian. Just sharing my current understanding.
Bluesky is much better for this type of thing. It functions like X did 10 years ago: anyone can read the posts and subsequent thread, even if they don't have a Bluesky account.
The main non-political issue with X is that those without an account (or who are unable to login) may not be able to access it, which isn't ideal for a backup communications channel. Best of both worlds is to set up mirroring where you post to bluesky and automatically post a copy to X.
I use VSCode more often than PyCharm nowadays (same reasons as TFA, it's just too heavy), but unless something has changed in the last couple of months, you can disable the AI completions
"Works most of the time" isn't good enough here.
reply