this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2026
775 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

87575 readers
3796 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

YouTube’s system for suppressing low-quality AI content mistakenly targeted Kurzgesagt, leaving the channel with its worst-performing upload since 2013.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 188 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (24 children)

Yeah, it’s bad.

Non-watermarked slop is going to be impossible to detect going forward, and the false detections are going to get worse.

The fundamental issue is the monetization scheme. It’s just too lucrative for spammers. YouTube’s economics are broken, and getting worse.

…Hence, no matter what YouTube says, YouTube is going to double down on “detectors,” because Alphabet leadership couldn’t care less about destroying longstanding creators. Their only objective is to suppress just enough spam to keep ad buyers unconcerned next quarter, no matter the long term damage; that’s someone else’s problem.

[–] thehatfox@lemmy.world 87 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

The best solution would be to turn away from detectors, which will always be a losing game, and return to crowdsourced curation through users likes and ratings.

But that would end up with too many of the corporate propaganda videos getting tanked with dislikes so YouTube will never go for that.

[–] DrakeAlbrecht@lemmy.world 54 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

For every ten users who decry AI voices and animation, a thousand more will blindly click "Like" and "Subscribe". The people have spoken, and they want to eat straight from the fertilizer pile.

[–] MrQuallzin@pie.eyeofthestorm.place 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

People only click like and subscribe because their other options were taken from them. They got tired of the people speaking up so removed the options to do so.

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I've run my own anecdotal and admittedly small blind trials on friends and family. Most people unfortunately preferred the A.I. slop to real human content. My theory is because it tends to be brought and shiny. The only actual study I could find online, told participants which is which, kind of defeating the purpose in my opinion.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

It's engagement optimized, that's why.

That's the whole point of the spam; being engagement bait.

Same thing applies to any human made clickbait, and people have demonstrated they simply cannot help themselves, and click it.

[–] joe@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

There was recently a study using human short stories and LLM generated short stories prompted to write a similar story. The participants where told which stories were AI generated, but sometimes they were lied to, and told a human-written story was AI generated.

The study showed that people liked the AI stories more. It also showed that if someone has a negative bias against AI generated content, they'd claim the AI story was worse, even if it were actually the human story and they were just told it was AI.

Also, another test was performed where they provided a story and asked them if it was AI generated or human generated. The participants could only tell the AI written story 45% to 50% of the time. Essentially, they were guessing.

More info: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/05/ai-generated-stories-rated-better-quality-than-human-written-ones-study-finds

I think many people have taken a mental snapshot of the quality of AI generated content from a couple years ago and just assumed it hasn't improved since then.

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah that mirrors my findings too… my hypothesis was that everyone would clearly prefer the human equivalent art, but I was disappointed to be proven wrong. That's the nature of science though, sometimes you get your presumptions smacked down.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 weeks ago

nah, they are doing that because they are good taught consumers who know well how to follow orders obediently. It's just so convenient to not think, just do what they tell them. aah have you seen that animation, and the sound effect?!

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)