Again, this isn't GenAI.

The idea of it being "without consent" is absurd. Your phone doesn't ask you for consent to apply smoothing to the Bayer filter, or denoising to your zoom. Sites don't ask you for consent to recompress your video.

This is just computational image processing. Phones have been doing this stuff for many years now.

This isn't adding new elements to a video. It's not adding body parts or changing people's words or inventing backgrounds or anything.

And "experiments" are just A/B testing. If it increases engagement, they roll it out more broadly. If it doesn't, they get rid of it.

▲

pbronez 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, the big video platforms are constantly working on better ways to store and deliver video. If this stuff is applying to some workflow that automatically generates Shorts from real videos... whatever. Very similar to experimenting with different compression schemes. Video compression can differ on a per-shot basis now!

If you want to make pristine originals available to the masses, seed a torrent.

▲

giantrobot 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Again, this isn't GenAI.

Yet.

▲

crazygringo 2 days ago | parent [-]

How about we stick to the facts of what is actually happening?

I mean, I'm also not Brad Pitt. "Yet."

	▲	giantrobot 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Given Google's history and the fact they rolled this out without notice or consent makes me feel comfortable saying "yet". If YouTube can get away with making GenAI YouTubers (via some likeness sign off buried in the T&C) without paying the originals I'm sure they'd love to do so. All the ad impressions with none of the payout to creators. Their AI answers box (and old quick answer box) has already affected traffic to outside sites with answers scraped from those sites. Why wouldn't they make fake YouTubers? > I mean, I'm also not Brad Pitt. "Yet." Not with that attitude!