777
YouTube’s AI slop detector incorrectly targets Kurzgesagt as other creators fear same fate - Dexerto (www.dexerto.com)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
249 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 54 points 1 week ago (1 child)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 week 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 week 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 week 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 days 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 week 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?!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent