> I already addressed this and you're talking over it.
You didn't address it, you handwaved it.
> Why are you making the assumption that AI == no appeal and zero staff?
I explicitly stated the reason -- it is cheaper and it will work for the majority of instances while the edge cases won't result in losing a large enough user base that it would matter to them.
I am not making assumptions. Google notoriously operates in this fashion -- for instance unless you are a very popular creator, youtube functions like that.
> That makes zero sense, one has nothing to do with the other.
Cheaper and mostly works and losses from people leaving are not more than the money saved by removing support staff makes perfect sense and the two things are related to each other like identical twins are related to each other.
> The human element comes in for appeal process.
What does a company have to gain by supplying the staff needed to listen to the appeals when the AI does a decent enough job 98% of the time? Corporations don't exist to do the right thing or to make people happy, they are extracting value and giving it to their shareholders. The shareholders don't care about anything else, and the way I described returns more money to them than yours.
> I am not making assumptions. Google notoriously operates in this fashion -- for instance unless you are a very popular creator, youtube functions like that.
Their copyright takedown system has been around for many years and wasn't contingent on AI. It's a "take-down now, ask questions later" policy to please the RIAA and other lobby groups. Illegal/abuse material doesn't profit big business, their interest is in not having it around.
You deliberately conflated moderation & appeal process from the outset. You can have 100% AI handling of suspect uploads (for which the volume is much larger) with a smaller staff handling appeals (for which the volume is smaller), mixed with AI.
Frankly if your hypothetical upload is still rejected after that, it 99% likely violates their terms of use, in which case there's nothing to say.
> it is cheaper
A lot of things are "cheaper" in one dimension irrespective of AI, doesn't mean they'll be employed if customers dislike it.
> the money saved by removing support staff makes perfect sense and the two things are related to each other like identical twins are related to each other.
It does not make sense to have zero staff in as part of managing an appeal process (precisely to deal with edge cases and fallibility of AI), and it does not make sense to have no appeal process.
You're jumping to conclusions. That is the entire point of my response.
> What does a company have to gain by supplying the staff needed to listen to the appeals when the AI does a decent enough job 98% of the time?
AI isn't there yet, notwithstanding, if they did a good job 98% of the time then who cares? No one.
> Their copyright takedown system has been around for many years and wasn't contingent on AI.
So what? It could rely on tea leaves and leprechauns, it illustrates that whatever automation works will be relied on at the expense of any human staff or process
> it 99% likely violates their terms of use, in which case there's nothing to say.
Isn't that 1% the edge cases I am specifically mentioning are important and won't get addressed?
> doesn't mean they'll be employed if customers dislike it.
The customers on ad supported internet platforms are the advertisers and they are fine with it.
> You're jumping to conclusions. That is the entire point of my response.
Conclusions based on solid reason and evidenced by past events.
> AI isn't there yet, notwithstanding, if they did a good job 98% of the time then who cares? No one.
Until you realize that 2% of 2.89billion monthly users is 57,800,000.
You didn't address it, you handwaved it.
> Why are you making the assumption that AI == no appeal and zero staff?
I explicitly stated the reason -- it is cheaper and it will work for the majority of instances while the edge cases won't result in losing a large enough user base that it would matter to them.
I am not making assumptions. Google notoriously operates in this fashion -- for instance unless you are a very popular creator, youtube functions like that.
> That makes zero sense, one has nothing to do with the other.
Cheaper and mostly works and losses from people leaving are not more than the money saved by removing support staff makes perfect sense and the two things are related to each other like identical twins are related to each other.
> The human element comes in for appeal process.
What does a company have to gain by supplying the staff needed to listen to the appeals when the AI does a decent enough job 98% of the time? Corporations don't exist to do the right thing or to make people happy, they are extracting value and giving it to their shareholders. The shareholders don't care about anything else, and the way I described returns more money to them than yours.