[lillecarl]

I don't have any data to back this up, but i believe of those 2500 videos per minute, 2450 or so the AI could classify them as safe, not requiring human interaction. The other 50 are classified on a scale from 0 to 100 on a badness scale. The ones closer to "not that bad" (ToS and such) gets put through automatically waiting for a review. The illegal content (rape, gore, child porn) and such gets blocked automatically until reviewed by a human. Doesn't sound that far fetched to implement with 50B a year in profits?

[qayxc]

But how would that help with complaints, ContentId and copyright claims, though?

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.

[lillecarl]

And right now it's essentially impossible to be heard by a human, which is the problem. They don't have enough humans employed.

[zentiggr]

I've thought that something like the spamassassin model would be sufficient - calculate a 0.0 - 1.0 range of likelihood to block, and set cutoffs on the 0 end to auto approve, and toward the 1 end to auto block, and moderate the middle.

Was good for spam for a long time.