- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
That’s good, but considering last I heard months of content is uploaded every day I think enforcement will be spotty at best.
Yeah the policies were never the problem.
At least now they can ban accounts with reason. It’s a step in the right direction as there are lots of “science” accounts basically posting ai spouted babble that sounds ‘sciencey’ getting hundreds of thousands of views.
If the science ain’t coming from PBS, Veritasium, Kurzgesagt, Minute Physics or Sabine Hossenfelder, then it’s getting the skeptical side eye.
Edit: someone ought to make a browser plugin that can vet science youtubers by way of user reporting like the ones that compare product reviews across multiple marketplaces and give them an A through F score.
Even Kurzgesagt isn’t incredible with science. They’re better with philosophy and thought experiments. There’s a couple very in depth videos abt what they’ve said wrong in climate science videos for example, and also pulls apart their funding which indicates heavy influence from billionaires in their formative years which seemed to influence the climate videos in question. If I can find it later I’ll link it here
Edit: the video in question: https://youtu.be/uCuy1DaQzWI?si=G5ubdRKHmCI3uWUO
Yeah, Kurzgesagt is very entertaining, but it’s really more popular science and not really about accuracy. I remember in a recent black hole video they were going on about the infinitely small singularity, where any self respecting scientist will tell you that that’s probably not the physical reality.
I even feel this way about sabine and PBS Space Time sometimes just because of topic choice, but I definitely respect both and watch their channels a good bit. Sometimes I feel that they can give too much of an air of credibility about really fringe ideas/hypotheses in the scientific community because those are what will generate clicks. Not to say that they’re bad, but if you’re really into astrophysics, someone like AcollierAstro might be more up your alley.
I loved that Sabine didn’t make any snarky remarks when MOND was disproven, even though she seemed to be a great MOND supporter. I don’t mind if a scientist (or science reporter) is biased as long as they disclose their bias.
And damn, for a minute I thought you knew someone I haven’t seen before. But I just never read her name. AcollierAstro is great, but sometimes her ranty repeating style is too much for my fragile brain.
It’s especially hard to vet them, since they usually have to do the stupid clickbaity titles and thumbnails if they want to be in any way successful. Took me a long time to finally watch Arvin Ash and Dr Becky. The latter has since become my favourite.
Meanwhile every other ad on YouTube is ai voice generated Biden saying to hurry and sign up for this $6400 subsidy.
Imagine how it will be with the “Trump, Biden and Obama play” series
If it’s realistic how will they tell?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“We’ll require creators to disclose when they’ve created altered or synthetic content that is realistic, including using AI tools,” the company wrote in a statement.
The move by YouTube comes as part of a series of efforts by the platform to address challenges posed by generative AI in content creation, including deepfakes, voice cloning, and disinformation.
In the detailed announcement, Jennifer Flannery O’Connor and Emily Moxley, vice presidents of product management at YouTube, explained that the policy update aims to maintain a positive ecosystem in the face of generative AI.
Also, content created by YouTube’s own generative AI products, such as AI-powered video creator Dream Screen, will be automatically labeled as altered or synthetic.
Creators who choose to avoid AI-use disclosure may be subject to penalties, including content removal or suspension from the YouTube Partner Program.
“This could include whether the content is parody or satire, whether the person making the request can be uniquely identified, or whether it features a public official or well-known individual, in which case there may be a higher bar.”
The original article contains 612 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
