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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
Readit News
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?
The later might as well been computer generated...
People are 99% nature, 1% nurture. We evolved to survive worse than witnessing pregnant Spider Man.
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.
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsagate
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.
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.