YouTube has admitted that Duitally polished creator’s shorts without their knowledge after a growing wave of creator confusion led to accusations that the AI internal is destroying videos.
The company claimed to have “experimented” with subtle machine learning improvements on selected shorts videos. The adjustments should improve the clarity of the videos, but were made without the consent of the creator.
The problem first got notice when musician and YouTuber Rick Beato noticed a clip of his interview with Pearl Jam guitarist Mike McCREADY on YouTube shorts seemed strange as it looked like it had been sent through a filter. He made a viral video about it, and many others started sending what looked like similar changes made as their own videos.
Although some, whose videos were affected, equalized accusations that YouTube was using AI on the videos, YouTube was firm that it was “only” machine learning.
Regardless of the tools used, however, the creators are more upset that their work was quietly changed in the first place. After weeks of increasing criticism, YouTube says it is building an opt-out, according to creator Liaison Rene Ritchie in a post on X.
Creators, we’ve heard your feedback on YouTube’s Deblurring and Denoising Shorts. There are a lot of good things coming in that pipeline, TBH. But if it’s not for you we’re working on an opt-out. Keep an eye on! https://t.co/tymf0wqvynAugust 26, 2025
AI visions
Despite YouTube comparing the changes in calculation photography, which improves smartphone photos, the most important difference is obvious when considering the order of events. Smartphone improvements are applied before the user ever sees the image. In YouTube’s case, the creators had already uploaded and approved their content, which was then changed behind the scenes after the fact without notice.
YouTube’s reasoning is understandable as shorts are mobile-first, fast rolling and often visually inconsistent. A little extra Polish could help the roller experience feel more coherent with clearer videos and a better experience.
But for creators who feel responsible for what has been sent under their name does not undermine -recognized changes the creative ownership. Especially in a time when AI Fakery is making viewers more skeptical of what they are already looking at their screens.
For example, Netflix provoked A lot of indignation over “HD -Remaster” by classic sitcoms like Another world. The AI involved made for some crooked faces and creepy backgrounds, not to mention the AI-generated posters for its content.
YouTube’s case is arguably more delicate. Unlike streaming platforms where viewers have little control over the product, YouTube is a creator -driven ecosystem. If the platform begins to change what creators publish, even with good intentions, it risks harming the confidence that causes the whole system to work.
YouTube’s promise of an opt-out is probably a necessary course correction, but one that first came after public pressure. If platforms want to keep their users and creators who keep them alive, they need to be more transparent, whether it is AI or just machine learning that seems to emulate AI in the results.
