this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
369 points (93.8% liked)

Technology

77872 readers
3375 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 75 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

From what I've seen so far, the case here seems to be that it's only being done to shorts, and what's happening is that they're being permanently stored at a lower quality and size and are then upscaled on the fly. I mean... it feels kinda fair to me. Theres a good reason YouTube has so little competition, and it's because how hard and expensive maintaining a service like this is. They're always trying to cut costs, and storage is gonna be a big cost. Personally, I'm glad it's just shorts for now. It absolutely shouldn't be happening to people who are paying for the service or making money for it, though.

[–] ObviouslyNotBanana@piefed.world 71 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean yeah, it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. But if it actually was reasonable, wouldn't they just inform the uploader?

[–] T156@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Or give an option to toggle. Surely letting people turn it off would save them even more resources, if they don't have to bother with upscaling the video in the first place.

[–] 01189998819991197253 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It likely costs them less to upscale than it does to store and serve a full sized video, so they're not giving the uploader the choice.

[–] exu@feditown.com 7 points 4 months ago

Storage is very cheap. This only makes sense if they actually do the upscaling client side

[–] Zarxrax@lemmy.world 31 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It would not make any sense for them to be upscaled on the fly. It's a computationally intensive operation, and storage space is cheap. Is there any evidence of it being done on the fly?

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It would if they can do it on your device.

[–] Zarxrax@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

While it could theoretically be done on device, it would require the device to have dedicated hardware that is capable of doing the processing, so it would only work on a limited number of devices. It would be pretty easy to test this if a known modified video were available.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

AI upscaling can be run on a ton of devices nowadays.

Also people are forgetting it’s not just storage, it’s bandwidth they save with this move. So even if they store both the low and high res copies they can save 4x the bandwidth (or more) serving to devices with upscaling capabilities.

[–] TheRealKuni@piefed.social 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s not that computationally intensive to upscale frames. TVs have been doing it algorithmically for ages and looking good doing it. Hell, nVidia graphics cards can do it for every single frame of high end games with DLSS. Calling it “AI” because the type of algorithm it’s using is just cashing in on the buzzword.

(Unless I’m misunderstanding what’s going on.)

[–] Zarxrax@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You are right that nvidia cards can do it for games using DLSS. Nvidia also has a version called RTX video that works for video. But are they could to be dedicating hardware for playback every single time a user requests to play a short? That is significantly different than just serving a file to the viewer. If they had all of these Nvidia cards laying around, they surely have better things that they could use them for. To be clear here, the ONLY thing I am taking issue with is a comment that it seems that youtube may be upscaling videos on the fly (as opposed to upscaling them once when they are uploaded, and then serving that file 1 million times). I'm simply saying that it makes a hell of a lot more sense any day of the week to upscale a file one time than to upscale it 1 million times.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 months ago

My video card deffo heats up more when watching youtube over peertube. I'm pretty sure they're using my graphics card for upscaling.

[–] Dragomus@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's not so much that they down- and upscale the video of shorts, their algorithm changes the look of people. It warps skin and does a strange sort of sharpening that makes things look quite unreal and almost plastic.

It is a filter that evens the look with images generated by, say, grok or one of the other AI filters.

In a year people will think that "AI-look" is a normal video look, and stuff generated with it is what humans can look like. We will see crazed AI-fashion looks popping up.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 11 points 4 months ago

Yeah, upscaling can generate artefacts and such.