I dunno, where's the evidence this case was even done by AI? People just say Google does everything with computers when they actually use armies of contractors.
> Anyhow, I truly believe humanity has to rollback to operating at a human scale.
It's impossible to operate a complaints-platform on a global scale if it's run by humans. According to GMI [0], 500 hours of content are uploaded every minute.
Given an average video duration of about 12 minutes [1], that would be 2500 videos per hour. That's just too much to manually review and handle complaints.
[0] https://www.globalmediainsight.com/blog/youtube-users-statis...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1026923/youtube-video-ca...
Yes, it is - because it's actually 2500 videos per MINUTE, not per hour, mea culpa. So your 30,000 reviewers would actually have to be at least 1.8 MILLION.
The misconception is that it's the review process that's the problem - it isn't. That can be automated just fine.
The problem arises as soon as there are complaints or issues with the content and that depends on the number of videos, not the duration.
So if there's a problem with a video it can get flagged, de-monetised or even taken down automatically by software (as is the case now). This is a non-issue. It gets complicated as soon as one party has a dispute over this and that scales with the number of videos, not their length.
That seems pausible, but if so, the entire calculation would have to be redone from scratch, with qualitatively (not quantitatively; different units, not just different values) different numbers, so bringing "1.6 million" into it is still a misleading non sequitor.
Just look at all the reaction channels and compilations that simply reuse the same content over and over again. You have one funny or shocking clip (often from 3rd party sources such as TikTok) and you'll find the same video snippet in at least 10,000 remix/compilation/reaction videos. Not to mention reuploads and straight up copies.
Algorithms have a hard time catching up with this and cropping, mirroring, tinting, etc. are often used to confuse ContentID. Asymmetry is the problem. Bots and software can both spam and flag content at superhuman rates.
The inverse - e.g. deciding whether a complaint is legit, fair use applies, whether monetisation is possible, etc. - is actually a really hard problem and therein lies the dilemma.
Certain parties are gaming the system and the scale is just too much to handle manually.
Was good for spam for a long time.
The problem isn't the automated review process, the problem is complaints and disputes.
Even if only 1% of all videos had any issues of this sort at all, that'd still be 25 complaints per minute about the most complex topic in media no less - copyright law and fair use.
The problem lies in the asymmetry - bots and automated flagging campaigns can scan, mark and take down thousands of videos per minute no problem.
But it's impossible for creators to get their issue reviewed in time by a human, because we just don't have AI capable of handling such decisions yet. And even then it's often still not as clear-cut as one might think and both sides need to be heard, etc.
Forcing them to state that in a specific forum as some sort of power play isn't going to help.