YouTube Is Using AI to Alter Content (and not telling us)

[xocetaceans]

This would be a serious breach of trust on the part of YouTube. As Rhett Shull points out, this potentially creates a sense of distrust between content creators and their respective audiences (that comment starts at 09:26 in the video).

However, at this point, it is unclear why this is being done by YouTube.

In my opinion, YouTube should immediately stop this practice. It makes me question whether YouTube will be a reliable source of any information in the future if they are willing to do this sort of thing: that is, this practice might conceivably be a pathway to normalize a future insertion of large volumes of AI slop content, and so at some point, the time cost of having to try to distinguish what is real from what will be AI slop will render using YouTube as no longer worthwhile. (YouTube's ads without an ad blocker are truly bad enough already: many of them belong on the pages of a pseudo-journalistic ad sheet which would be a cross between the National Inquirer and a Chick tract.)

[bucolic_frolic]

1. So they are adultering real videos to be on the same level as AI videos

That's what I make of it at this point.

Because I see MANY AI videos. I'm also tired of decades old videos being re-edited, chopped, repackaged by a series of channels that make them appear current. Often they're audio interviews with video blended in, the same scenes repeated.

[eppur_se_muova]

2. Are they altering copyrighted media ? Because that would be a super-duper big no-no, and cause to sue. nt

[xocetaceans]

12. They seem to be using AI to alter video resolution or to filter aspects of videos. It is not yet clear...

...to what extent they are using it, but it seems to be being applied irregularly across video and thus gives the viewer the possible impression that the video is not authentic but instead is AI slop.

I thought I had noticed a similar effect early last week in videos which were posted by the YouTube channel danasinpired;

https://www.youtube.com/@danasinspired .

It had started looking as if her face were being created by AI, but after seeing the above video, I believe that is another example of YouTube's alteration of the video quality via AI filters.

Hopefully, a tech site will be able to do some investigation and publish an article that does explain what is going on.

My apologies for not addressing your question more quickly: I did not really say much explicitly about the video's content when I posted it.

[LeftInTX]

13. Some people choose to alter their own videos.

I just made one and uploaded it. It will be ready in a few minutes. But it's gonna be set to private. Cuz I look like crap at the moment and using my webcam.

I know AT&T severally compresses any videos or images that I send via SMS on my Android. It's to the point they look like they came from the 90s.

My video is uploaded. There is some compression of a fun noodle that's in the back ground. It isn't 1/8 as bad as what AT&T does to my videos.

I didn't look at my face because I'm in and out etc.





ETA: I looked at my face. Although there is some compression, I look the same. My bad tooth still looks like crap. Skin isn't quite as blotchy because it's a bit blurrier. But it still looks blotchy and crappy like my webcam shows..LOL Ugly circles and dark spots on my face on both youtube and webcam. Very uneven skin tone on both the webcam and Youtube. My hair looks exactly the same and it's highlighted in the exact same spots.

It sure doesn't look like AI to me!!

[xocetaceans]

15. I understand. ...

I am not commenting on this topic to achieve any sort of enforced standard of realism in video. Filters are clearly fine for anyone who wants to use them.

What is happening with YouTube is something significantly different. The generally blurred effect that is present in the examples that you posted is not quite what is seen the Rhett Schull video or in the danasinspired videos that I noticed earlier. In both of those cases, what seems possibly to be an AI filter made certain regions of the video have sharp gradients in detail which made it appear as if AI was creating/constructing those regions of the images without respecting how detail is affected by depth of field, etc.

So, it is not a image quality issue, but instead an issue concerning the perception of the authenticity of a channel's video: i.e., is the video in question merely AI slop, or is the video in question an authentic video from the channel's proprietor?

[LeftInTX]

16. But my YouTube video didn't show any difference, except compression. Compression (blur) happens to save bandwidth.

I just uploaded it a few minutes ago!!!! I just videoed myself when I was participating in this thread!

I did not see any of that in my video. Mine was not a YouTube short either. I notice that "shorts" seem to have more filters, but also reels on FB have tons of AI.

[LeftInTX]

14. DanaInspired appears to "enhance" her videos. She wears quite a bit of make up etc.

It's her choice.

Here is how my skin looks on youtube. My faceshape is exactly like it is on my webcam. No different at all.


I also lose compression when I download the screenshot, so the imperfections aren't as visible.
On YouTube my nose is redder.
You can see the dark circle under my eye and you can see the dark bluish shadow on my inner eye corner.

[xocetaceans]

17. I think I understand, but I think that we are talking about different things. I only mentioned her channel because ...

... after watching regularly for at least the last six months after first being exposed to her bitingly enjoyable sense of humor and sarcasm, I saw really bizarre artifacts appearing in her videos. My first thought at seeing those edge artifacts appear was whether the channel was actually based on AI-generated video. So, after going back to much earlier videos, it did not seem like the same edge effects were there. That allayed the induced distrust, but it was initially very significant. I have no desire to watch any AI slop at all: the only purpose of communication on the internet is either to interact with people or to obtain quality information. AI slop fulfills neither purpose.

[LeftInTX]

18. Yes, I noticed her face shape is "off" in recent videos, but she appears to enhance her videos.

If you are filming with a virtual background to cover your real background, you will get all sorts of wonky stuff.

[xocetaceans]

21. For now, a lot of what may be happening is unclear. ...

... So, hopefully, a tech site will dig into this apparent phenomenon and have more to say about it. I'm only working from two anecdotes: the Rhett Schull video and my observations over the last week. Time will tell what is actually going on.

Nice conversing with you. It's late: so I am disappearing from this thread.

[LeftInTX]

19. I'm not seeing grainy edges. Her hair looks very natural and that's where you will see the cut off and weird stuff.

I can see her fly aways perfectly.

&ab_channel=danasinspired

[xocetaceans]

20. I agree. I did not see any artifacts in that video either. n/t

[-misanthroptimist]

3. Wait!

Youtube is a source of information?

I guess pet videos are a kind of information. Other than that, youtube is more or less useless, imo.

[misanthrope]

5. YouTube is one of the biggest platforms for podcasts now

Surprising but true.

[xocetaceans]

22. Yes, it is. Here is an example to complement the pet video proposal...

[-misanthroptimist]

23. 5k views in nearly five years.

I'm aware that there are some very informative videos on youtube. Like your example, they don't attract many viewers.

The dishonest, deranged, and the purely entertaining do much better on an hourly basis than most educational videos do yearly.

[misanthrope]

4. Tip for viewers

After the first couple of minutes of looking at the visible comparisons -- or roughly right after Brett Shull's wife weighs in -- pause the video and read the transcript. It only took me three minutes to read what takes eight minutes to watch so you'll save yourself some time.

I do this with YouTube frequently, especially if it consists of principally dialogue/interviews/explanations. Most of us read far faster than we can watch.

[TommyT139]

6. It's also usually possible

...to go to the "gear" icon for settings and watch it speeded up.

[misanthrope]

10. Yes, I've used that method as well

But I still read faster than I can listen.

[hunter]

7. Tell me what this video is about or don't bother.

I'm not going to watch it.

[Renew Deal]

8. There's a lengthy description under the video

[xocetaceans]

11. How many words are too many for you to invest time in reading? Should I use your comment as a yardstick of attention? Or

...do I get to use more words to allay your piqued annoyance?

[hunter]

24. Renew Deal's post #9 was enough to tell me what this is about.

I can go on with my life without watching the video.

[xocetaceans]

27. All good. No one was trying to compel that. Your pique was the odd part of the whole interaction. That is only ...

... understandable if you somehow think that the act of noticing a posted video somehow compels you to watch it. Otherwise, who knows why you would seem to feel that you have been abused to the point of annoyance by the posting of that video?

Have a better day: it seems like you need one.

[Renew Deal]

9. In terms of AI scandals, this is somewhere in the middle

A few years ago, people would have called this upscaling.

[rog]

25. Once you see this, you can't UNsee ... re: Paul Offit: Beyond The Noise.

Check out this video interview from MicrobeTV. I immediately noticed Paul Offit's glasses and ears, and both he and Racaniello look like ChatGPT renderings. I think it's especially noticeable because they are both head shots, Offit has a blank white background, and Racaniello is in a dark room with effective lighting. It's really obvious if you pause the video just about anywhere.

This is really weird.

[xocetaceans]

26. So, does that mean you're a closet anti-vaxxer? It is not clear whether you're referencing UnHerd, or not.

If so, in either case, maybe you should go learn a few things about vaccines and virology. Microbe TV would be a great place for you to start. It might take you some time to learn, but there are courses and discussions available on that YouTube channel, and if you stick with them and do some reading, you can get over that potential lack of knowledge that you might be indicating. Good luck.

[rog]

28. What are you talking about, please??? Did you even look at the video?

The video itself is from MicrobeTV, the premier virology channel on the internet, and the presentation is by Dr Paul Offit, one of the world's premier vaccine researchers and a renowned expert in public health.

So my first question to you is, how is posting that video even remotely anti-vax? And if you're not familiar with MicrobeTV, perhaps it's you who should bone up on vaccines and virology.

But this post was not even about science ... it was about AI enhancement of YouTube videos. And I maintain that this is a prime example of that. I've watched hundreds of their videos, and I could immediately detect the AI 'enhancement' in this one, per the Rhett Shull video the OP put up. By the way, I am a long time follower of both Rhett and Rick Beato.

So the bottom line is, I am puzzled by your response to my contribution and I'm hoping you can enlighten me about where you're coming from. Otherwise, I didn't enjoy your response at all. I found it remarkably unperceptive, ill-informed, and combative.

I am tempted to say more, but ... I just can't.

[rog]

29. And I did NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT 'UNHERD', whatever that is.

I said that once you see this AI 'enhancement', you can't 'unsee' it, which means you see it everywhere.

Please practice your reading skills.