Ai generated is an upgrade compared to the disturbing elsaXspiderman material humans made. It is the curation thats the problem, not who and how the children content is made.
"On November 23, French-Canadian outlet Tabloïd released a video investigation about Toy Monster, a channel linked to Webs and Tiaras. They confronted the videos' creators – based out of the south shore of Quebec City – who refused to be interviewed. One of the actors featured in the videos anonymously stated that he was contractually obligated to refrain from commenting. The investigation revealed that identical content was being posted on numerous channels apparently operated by the same people."
I'm not clear how you think the ML of 2017 would have been useful for generating these videos? This points to specific actors and creators, who I expect were using whatever was cheap and easy to produce a pile of content with in 2017.
Pre-2017 tech would have been up to the task. You'd create a bunch of generic animations and characters (all rigged up to the same skeletal system so all the animations work on all the characters), and design composable elements for a scene. Then use ML categorization techniques to label both popular YouTube videos and your pieces. From there it would be mostly automated: the ML agent strings together scenes to create a bunch of videos, then use reinforcement learning to adjust and mutate content based on some metric of view counts.
Sometimes I think the old cartoons that were churned out by Korean(?) artist-sweatshops were no different from AI-generated. People with an imperfect understanding of Western culture and values, drawing vague representations of 'American stuff'.
Think of the children! The (probably paid for) fear mongering campaign is getting rediculous.
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
― Walter Langer
What's the lie? That AI is a systemic danger and should be heavily regulated and only large corporations should control it for the safety of civilization.
What's the truth? AI is disruptive and a threat to those very large corporations that are pushing the big lie.
It's well known that Youtube already has a sea of bizarre garbage content targeted at children. It's hard for me to imagine that AI could even make it worse than it already is.
There's not much you can do apart from providing a decent baseline and getting lucky. Which, on the one hand, is profoundly relaxing; on the other, it's pretty depressing and scary.
This isn’t just merely witnessing something, a better take would be ‘have we evolved to be be raised by videos of pregnant spooderman.’ I think that’s a negative, ghost rider.
When you consider that children already watch trash on youtube, then yes I agree that there is no reason to get worried about anything. But the entire concept of letting your children watch trash on youtube is worrying.
Not having children myself it's easy for me to say that everything on the internet should be treated as if it was 18+ and therefore children don't belong on the internet. Period. Especially not on their own. There are exceptions of course like websites that are highly geared towards the education of children but youtube (kids) in it's majority is not that.
Idk just making many more things than humans could possibly filter is worse to me? A volume of content which is impossible for humans to sort through, which occasionally have something incredibly disturbing in them, generated by something fundamentally incapable of understanding and empathy. Things can be much worse than 'kind of boring'. It's sad that AI will probably be used more often for kids content at first because lots of parents don't really pay close attention.
You don't need LLM's or diffusion models to overwhelm "moderation at scale" because "moderation at scale" was a fantasy in the first place, and its cracks had already been exposed and widening.
Maybe you were hanging onto some optimism and needed the jostle of this new technology to see how doomed it all was already?
Studios could have replaced the expensive professional writing talent they compete to hire with cheaper and worse writers already, even while staying on good terms with the WGA. Yet they were making a choice to pay lots of money to people who were charging more. There's a reason for that!
Writing is not a cost center for modern production and trimming that cost gets you little except a much higher risk of generating garbage that doesn't work for your audience. Studios pay talent for reliability, consistency, and team compatability -- and that's worth quite a lot to them.
Might generative AI have a place in film/TV writing eventually? Maybe. But it's going to take a lot more than what current LLM's deliver. You're a decade ahead of yourself.
There are mediums that likely are moving towards content generatirs, but film/TV just isn't going to be one of them for a while. They just don't really need what it currently offers.
My five year old watches some YouTube under supervision, and the algorithm has been recommending a new variety of "quiz" videos that are partially or entirely AI generated. It's usually around a theme, such as Super Mario Brothers, and it asks open-ended questions like "Would you marry him?" without revealing the "him" until after a countdown. Then it shows an obviously AI-generated image of a character such as Bowser.
Another variation asks the viewer things like "which car would you pick?", with options to select the "black", "white", "rainbow", or "gold" gift box, then after a countdown shows a grid of AI generated images corresponding to the colors, where one color seems to be the intended "correct" answer, but it is left to the viewer to decide.
These videos are dumb and lazy, and I'll bet they'll become a lot more common soon.
36 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 92.1 ms ] threadhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsagate
This seems to be the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSqqIlKHgpo
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
― Walter Langer
What's the lie? That AI is a systemic danger and should be heavily regulated and only large corporations should control it for the safety of civilization.
What's the truth? AI is disruptive and a threat to those very large corporations that are pushing the big lie.
The later might as well been computer generated...
People are 99% nature, 1% nurture. We evolved to survive worse than witnessing pregnant Spider Man.
People are born with some predisposition to certain behaviors, but that is far from being set in stone.
Good, attentive parenting is the difference maker.
There's not much you can do apart from providing a decent baseline and getting lucky. Which, on the one hand, is profoundly relaxing; on the other, it's pretty depressing and scary.
Social scientists are LARPing as actual scientists. There is no rigor. Most people in the hard sciences have little regard or respect for their work.
Arguing that parents play little/no role in the development of children is peak academic nonsense.
Studies like what you’re citing only give comfort to the parents who would rather live life looking at their phones than parent their children.
Not having children myself it's easy for me to say that everything on the internet should be treated as if it was 18+ and therefore children don't belong on the internet. Period. Especially not on their own. There are exceptions of course like websites that are highly geared towards the education of children but youtube (kids) in it's majority is not that.
You don't need LLM's or diffusion models to overwhelm "moderation at scale" because "moderation at scale" was a fantasy in the first place, and its cracks had already been exposed and widening.
Maybe you were hanging onto some optimism and needed the jostle of this new technology to see how doomed it all was already?
Except for stuff that is clearly low effort in the first place.
Studios could have replaced the expensive professional writing talent they compete to hire with cheaper and worse writers already, even while staying on good terms with the WGA. Yet they were making a choice to pay lots of money to people who were charging more. There's a reason for that!
Writing is not a cost center for modern production and trimming that cost gets you little except a much higher risk of generating garbage that doesn't work for your audience. Studios pay talent for reliability, consistency, and team compatability -- and that's worth quite a lot to them.
Might generative AI have a place in film/TV writing eventually? Maybe. But it's going to take a lot more than what current LLM's deliver. You're a decade ahead of yourself.
There are mediums that likely are moving towards content generatirs, but film/TV just isn't going to be one of them for a while. They just don't really need what it currently offers.
Another variation asks the viewer things like "which car would you pick?", with options to select the "black", "white", "rainbow", or "gold" gift box, then after a countdown shows a grid of AI generated images corresponding to the colors, where one color seems to be the intended "correct" answer, but it is left to the viewer to decide.
These videos are dumb and lazy, and I'll bet they'll become a lot more common soon.
If you’re a parent with a young toddler who watches Cocomelon, you should learn how they decide to make their reedits.
The cocomelon staff creates a testing environment with a child watching two tvs:
Tv 1 with Cocomelon on Tv 2 with mundane video like gardening on
When the child shifts their attention away from tv 1, the cocomelon staff reedits the scene to capture more of the child’s attention.
It makes me value high creator effort shows like Peppa Pig and Bluey even more.