“AI”
Sharpening, Denoising and upscaling barely count as machine learning. They don’t require AI neural networks.
Sharpening is a simple convolution, doesn’t even count as ML.
I really hate that everything gets the AI label nowadays
The “ai bad” brainrot has everyone thinking that any algorithm is AI and all AI is ChatGPT.
To be fair, back before ML natural language programming, non-tech folks often assumed coding was just telling the computer what you want in plain English. Today that’s what vibecoders do
It would be nice if it ever gets as good as the Star Trek bridge computer. Maybe we can save more whales
To save the whales you also need transparent aluminum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxynitride
just today someone told me that Vocaloid was also AI music, they are either too dumb to make some basic fact-checking or true believers trying to hype up AI by any means necessary
My simple rule is that if it uses a neural network model of some kind, then it can be accurately called AI.
Thisthisthis
They don’t require AI neural networks.
Sharpening and denoising don’t. But upscalers worth anything do require neural nets.
Anything that uses a neural network is the definition of AI.
Not true
Company I used to work for had excellent upscalers running on FPGAs that they developed 20+ years ago.
The algorithms have been there for years, just AI gives it bit of marketing sprinkle to something that has been a solved problem for years.
Well, the algorithms that make up many neural networks have existed for over 60 years. It’s only recently that hardware has been able to make it happen.
AI gives it bit of marketing sprinkle to something that has been a solved problem for years.
Not true and I did say “any upscaler that’s worth anything”. Upscaling tech has existed at least since digital video was a thing. Pixel interpolation is the simplest and computationally easiest method. But it tends to give a slight hazy appearance.
It’s actually far from a solved problem. There’s a constant trade-off beyond processing power and quality. And quality can still be improved by a lot.
at least since digital video
Right. Even back in the eighties UK broadcasters were “upscaling” American NTSC 480i60 shows to 576i50. The results were varied. High-ticket shows like Friends and Fraiser looked great, albeit a bit soft and oversaturated, while live news feeds looked terrible. If you’ve never seen it, The Day Today has a perfect example of what a lot of US programmes lookd like converted to PAL.
Ya, I knew there were analogue “upscalers”, but I’m not familiar enough with them to confidently call them an upscaler vs a signal converter.
Barely count or not they absolutely ruin every piece of media I’ve seen them used in. They make people look like wax figures and turn text into gibberish.
But you can use AI for that
From what I’ve seen so far, the case here seems to be that it’s only being done to shorts, and what’s happening is that they’re being permanently stored at a lower quality and size and are then upscaled on the fly. I mean… it feels kinda fair to me. Theres a good reason YouTube has so little competition, and it’s because how hard and expensive maintaining a service like this is. They’re always trying to cut costs, and storage is gonna be a big cost. Personally, I’m glad it’s just shorts for now. It absolutely shouldn’t be happening to people who are paying for the service or making money for it, though.
I mean yeah, it doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable. But if it actually was reasonable, wouldn’t they just inform the uploader?
Or give an option to toggle. Surely letting people turn it off would save them even more resources, if they don’t have to bother with upscaling the video in the first place.
It would not make any sense for them to be upscaled on the fly. It’s a computationally intensive operation, and storage space is cheap. Is there any evidence of it being done on the fly?
It would make sense if it’s a scheme to inject ads directly into the stream so adblockers wouldn’t work anymore.
They could do that without upscaling. Upscaling every video only fly would cost an absolute shit ton of money, probably more than they would be making from the ad. There is no scenario where they wouldn’t just upscale it one time and store it.
It’s not so much that they down- and upscale the video of shorts, their algorithm changes the look of people. It warps skin and does a strange sort of sharpening that makes things look quite unreal and almost plastic.
It is a filter that evens the look with images generated by, say, grok or one of the other AI filters.
In a year people will think that “AI-look” is a normal video look, and stuff generated with it is what humans can look like. We will see crazed AI-fashion looks popping up.
Nice
(linked from the article about a Netflix series upscale)
It’s very likely to do with compression codecs to save money.
Knowing Google, they care more about blurring the lines between AI and reality to confuse and force it onto people than they do about saving a few dollars on storage costs.
I KNEW THOSE SHORTS I’VE BEEN WATCHING HAD THE “AI LOOK” GOD-DAMNIT! With the smooth faces and the weird plastic looking contrast.
Don’t watch shorts
Why? I like shorts, bite sized, shaped for mobile when I’m in bed or shitting, interesting content — my feed is very curated after many years of training it, so I only ever get interesting stuff, no brain rot 👍. Coincidentally my Watch Later list is getting out of control. 😓
My biggest issue with shorts as someone whos watched them is they very often leave out a lot of context or very important information. Shorts are just an evolution of clickbait titles or inflammatory headlines in my opinion. Theres some that are really good but the primary nature of shorts means your exposed to all types not just good ones.
I pretty much get only good quality content. I am very particular about my viewing history. A lot of shorts are probably click bait, but I’ve been very diligent with down voting, and pressing “don’t show this account again”, removing accidental garbage from my viewing history, stuff like that. I believe it has paid off in the end.
I like
W R O N G
Looking at the vote ratio, apparently so!
I had accidentally fat fingered a downvote while laughing at myself. Fixed it so your ratio looks better now.
Haha no worries, I was just curious 😄 Thanks buddy!
lmao why am I getting down voted 😆 serious replies only please 🙏
Stop consuming content.
Guess I better get off Lemmy then
deleted by creator
yucky, shorts lol
Well, who would have doubted it? Fuck, 1984 is already here.
Well, youtube is not even intended to host quality content anymore, but besides that, this appears to just be visual tweaks. This title is trying to be vague enough that one could assume it’s tweaking the content itself which would be of real concern. It’s not doing that (for now). Video graphics seems like an awefully minor thing to be screaming about AI over. Especially when AI has actual reprocussions in the knowledge accuracy sector.
