YouTube has admitted digitally polishing the shorts of the creators without their knowledge, after a growing wave of confusion of creators that led to accusations of interference that ruin videos.
The company claimed to have been “experimenting” with subtle improvements of automatic learning in selected Shorts videos. The adjustments are supposed to improve the clarity of the videos, but they were made without the consent of the creator.
The problem first received notice when the musician and youtuber Rick Blessed noticed a clip of his interview with Pearl Jam Mike McCready guitarist in YouTube’s shorts seemed strange, it seemed that it had been sent through a filter. He made a viral video about it, and many others began publishing what seemed similar to their own videos.
Although some whose videos were affected by the level accusations that YouTube applied to the videos, YouTube was firm about being “only” automatic learning.
However, regardless of the tools used, creators are more annoying because their work was silently altered first. After weeks of growing criticism, YouTube says that it is building an exclusion option, according to the creator’s link Rene Ritchie in an X publication.
Creators, we have listened to your comments on the short -up shorts of YouTube. There are many good things in that pipe, TBH. But if it is not for you, we are working on an exclusion option. Stay tuned! https://t.co/tymf0wqvynAugust 26, 2025
AI visions
Although YouTube compared changes in computational photography, which improves photos of smartphones, the key difference is obvious when considering the order of events. The improvements of smartphones apply before the user sees the image. In the case of YouTube, the creators had already risen and approved their content, which then changed behind the scene after the fact, without prior notice.
YouTube’s reasoning is understandable, since the shorts are first mobile, often and, often visually inconsistent. An additional enamel could help the displacement experience feel more cohesive, with lighter videos and better experience.
But for creators who feel responsible for what is published under their name, unrecognized changes undermine that creative property. Especially at a time when AI Fakery makes viewers more skeptical than they see on their screens.
For example, Netflix caused A lot of indignation for “HD Remasters” of classical situation comedies such as A different world. The AI involved made some strange deformed faces and background, not to mention the posters generated by the AI for its content.
YouTube’s case is possibly more delicate. Unlike transmission platforms, where viewers have little control over the product, YouTube is an ecosystem driven by the creator. If the platform begins to alter what the creators publish, even with good intentions, it runs the risk of damaging the confidence that makes the entire system work.
The YouTube promise of an exclusion option is probably a correction of the necessary course, but that came only after public pressure. If the platforms want to maintain the confidence of their users and the creators who keep them alive, they must be more transparent, regardless of whether it is AI or simply automatic learning that seems to imitate AI in the results.
You may also like
