[floxy]

Right now the problem is the flood of low-quality AI spam that might (or might not) be low hanging fruit. We can worry about high quality AI artifacts later if that becomes a problem. (and yes, there is no guarantee that YouTube won't fail due to these spammers)

[numpad0]

But is an algorithmic AI detector really a thing?

I get the idea: get 10k each samples of human data and AI data, train a simple classifier until it gets 99.9999% accuracy or <10k false negatives per day at your scale, ship it as a screening tool.

Is such tool feasible at all with current state of AI technology, or is it just a reasonable take from the past that may not be so reasonable anymore?

[AnthonyMouse]

> I get the idea: get 10k each samples of human data and AI data, train a simple classifier until it gets 99.9999% accuracy or <10k false negatives per day at your scale

The issue is, that's not a thing. AI-generated content and human-generated content have significant overlap. No amount of training data can allow you to distinguish them with that level of accuracy because many outputs exist that could have been generated by either one. Additional training data allows you to say that the probability is 55.0374% plus or minus 0.0001, rather than only being able to say that it's 55% plus or minus 5%. It can tell you with greater precision exactly how ambiguous it is. What it can't do is remove the ambiguity.

[floxy]

We will find out shortly? YouTube is the one saying they are going to implement this:

"If a creator doesn’t specify whether or not they used AI, but our systems detect significant photorealistic AI use, we will now automatically apply a label."