• atro_city@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I’m so confused by this. Why is it comparing some youtube channels with streaming shows on streaming platforms that aren’t youtube? They only mention the minutes watched of TV shows but don’t have a comparable graph of youtube content. They don’t compare revenue of the youtube channels vs TV shows either.

    Was this article written by AI? It’s just terrible.

  • lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    14 hours ago

    What does AI slop have to do with TV executives not making good shows?

    Am I missing something? How is this not a huge leap?

    • Skavau@piefed.socialOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      There’s no direct link, but it’s all related in the sense that everything is competition for viewers eyes and attention. People watch Youtube a lot compared to streaming networks, and Youtube is increasingly comprised of more and more AI slop.

      • lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I guess that makes sense, thanks. My brain will not view YouTube as “real” because it’s just stupid cat videos and nazi apologists and corporate enshittification

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          13 hours ago

          YouTube recommends based on your search history so I don’t know what to say.

          I watch Adam Savage of Mythbusters, Physicist Angela Collier, ProZD, Level1Techs, etc and get similar suggestions.

          • MotoAsh@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Go on there without a watch history and it takes all of one or two videos before something shitty is recommended.

            Just because you do not see a problem does not magically make it absent.

            • VeganBtw@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 hours ago

              Same could be said of almost all platforms now, even the fediverse. You need to shape it how you want it. You can browse YT by your subscriptions only. I don’t see cat videos or Nazi propaganda.

          • lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Adam Savage? Can you please tell me why he’s out here shilling for Saudi Arabia on his insta? wtf is that about?

  • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    From YouTube’s CEO:

    “Just because the content is 75 percent AI generated doesn’t make it any better or worse than a video that’s 5 percent AI generated. What’s important is that it was done by a human being.”

    Uhhh, read that again. If human input is what is valuable then clearly the content that is 95% human vs 25% is much more valuable.

    Their lies are becoming more contradictory, even in the same paragraph.

  • Riskable@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    12 hours ago

    The problem: AI slop is replacing a tiny percentage human slop but the growth of AI data centers might mean that they can replace a greater percentage of human slop in the future.

    Meanwhile, executives at big studios are continuing their campaign of producing boring, unoriginal shows. Their great hope upon hope is that they too will be able to replace their boring, unoriginal shows with boring, unoriginal shows made by AI.

  • addie@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    This is the Youtube thing, where the AI slop output from data centres costing hundreds of billions is being used to generate one hundred million in advertising fees.

    It’s a good business model, for as long as all the venture capitalists continue to throw all the money they have into the unquenchable fire pit to subsidise it without questioning whether they’ll ever see any payback, and advertisers don’t wonder whether they’re getting any value from placements in the midst of it.

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    From that headline, one might assume that nothing new coming out is any good these days. That’s not true at all, but I will admit that it’s harder than ever to find the diamonds in the rough. Out of the hundreds of new shows that came out this year, probably less than ten of them were good imo. That may be one factor leading people to just rewatch old stuff.

    It’s hard to get motivated to invest time in a show that may not be good, may get cancelled, or might take a turn for the worse after a few episodes or seasons. I recently watched the two seasons of Poker Face. I loved the pilot episode, really enjoyed some episodes, and hated others. And it had been cancelled anyhow. So I wouldn’t really recommend it to anyone with those caveats.

    When there are hundreds of shows to choose from, and you have experiences like that, it can be paralyzing. The days of breaking bad and game of thrones being a part of a monoculture are over. You can’t just wait for people to annoy you into giving a show a chance and then seeing they had a point. You gotta dig through tons of trash to find the good stuff. Most of the shows and movies I enjoy these days aren’t anything my friends and family have ever heard of. And yeah, AI is going to make this all worse. Not only by adding more crap to the pile but also likely causing content quality to vary wildly. The golden age of television and the garbage age of television are both true right now.