Is the YouTube video improved with AI?

Have you noticed that the YouTube videos have started to have a little suspicion of the strange valley in recent months? You are far from being alone, because a growing choir of people stuck in the endless parchment of YouTube has started to reconstruct similar qualities through videos that give viewers the Heebie Jeebies. This is probably not the expected answer that YouTube was looking for, but according to an Atlantic report, the effects are intentional and are part of an experience in the course of YouTube to “improve” videos.

Here is what to look for to identify an “improved” video, according to users: “impactful shadows”, “sharp edges” and a “plastic” look. According to the BBC, the Youtubers also underlined these strange effects, which leads to more defined wrinkles in the clothes, to the skin which looks abnormally smooth and to an occasional deformation around the edges of a person’s face. Some creators have expressed their concern that the unnatural look could bring viewers to think that they used AI in their video.

All this appears because youtube refine people’s videos after downloading the content, and apparently made it without any notice of notice that changes would be made and without the authorization of the creator. And although youtubers like Rhett Shull suggested that the effects are the result of AI scaling, an attempt to improve video quality using AI tools, YouTube has a different explanation.

“We have experienced an experience on certain YouTube shorts that use traditional automatic learning technology to unpack, storing and improving the clarity of videos during processing (similar to what a modern smartphone does when you record a video),” said René Ritchie, head of the editorial and creator of YouTube. “YouTube always works on the means of providing the best video quality and the possible experience, and will continue to take into account the comments of the creator and the spectator as we are and improve these features.”

It is certainly an interesting decision to explicitly identify these techniques as a “traditional automatic learning technology” rather than on AI. A Google spokesperson made the message even clearer in a declaration to the Atlantic, declaring: “These improvements are not made with a generative AI.”

It is not as if youtube had moved out of the generator AI exactly. The platform has just launched a new suite of “generative effects” which he encouraged the creators to use. Other creators have shown that YouTube uses AI tools to generate “inspiration” and ideas for new videos for their channel. But it is perhaps the viscerally negative answer that people had during the identification of these “improved” videos which retains YouTube far from the language centered on AI.

This experience apparently lasts for a few months, if viewers’ eyes must trust. The BBC has followed examples of complaints concerning the effects described by YouTube as “improvements” dating from this year. This has also led some users to adopt a conspiratorial vision of the experience, suggesting that the company is trying to desensitize the public with AI style effects and make them more acceptable. On the positive side, this at least suggests that people generally reject the slope. Ideally, YouTube will not continue to hang out its creators in the AI ​​mud and leave their videos. It is not as if the platform is exactly short of content, after all.