I know you’re making a joke, but more seriously I think most yt videos have atrocious signal/noise ratios so information compression is likely very useful. Less so for many academic papers (although they have some pretty awful filler sometimes).
This week I got a notification about the AI added to YouTube to allow users to ask questions about a video. I haven’t had a chance to use it yet, but I can see that also being useful to get the main points from a long video. Up until now, I mainly use the popularity indicator on the progress bar. Since I watch most videos on my TV, it’s harder to use the AI, as I would need to pull out my phone, open the same video, and ask… that’s a bad workflow.
I do find it a little ridiculous that we need AI to summarize long videos full of fluff, when the only reason they are full of that fluff in the first place is YouTube’s own monetization policies which pushed the average video from 2-4 minutes to 10 minutes.
In a way, it's much easier to make the 20 minute video. Just hit record, rant an rave, stop recording and publish.
There are indeed justified long videos stuffed full with knowledge, insight and witty comments to make it fun.
Then there are "slow" videos but magical. Paul Sellers has a 30 min video on how to make mortise and tenons joint with hand tools. Just you and him in real time. You get a (recorded) private lesson from a master craftsman. It's magic. Every minute of it is knowledge transfer.
I think the reality is that there are a lot of amateur video creators. Elevating the few talented creators through social engagement metrics isn't perfect, but I think it works well enough. Or at least more so than what these anodyne summarizations would give us.