Presumably nothing jumped out at the author as being worse, but come on how can you have a whole section on why AV1's regression on Bojack is actually a good thing because the quality is way higher, and then not show any quality comparisons?

It'd be great to hear from someone at Netflix about the unexpected Bojack Horseman results. I'd bet that Netflix just isn't yet taking advantage of AV1 features designed especially for this kind of animation and synthetic content.

By now - it should be in most devices that's aren't outdated by even average standards. And it's worth mentioning that for devices that don't have hardware decoding, dav1d does an excellent job of decoding it on the CPU.

The problem is more with hardware encoding. That's indeed only present in only recent generations (or a couple) of hardware and even with that, AMD for example have an aspect ratio limitation bug in their AV1 hardware encoder (which requires adding black bands to work around) that's only fixed in RDNA 4 which is not available in their APUs, so it won't be fixed in APUs until their UDNA is used for them (they didn't fix it in RDNA 3.5 chips).

Perhaps the most important question which I have yet to see anyone pointing out. Those bit rate numbers are appalling! 2-4Mbps average bitrate? For a services you are paying for? I knew Netflix has gotten bad but this is worse than I thought. Even some high end YouTube Content does better than that. It should be 8Mbps minimum. And at this bitrate the difference between H.264 and AV1 wont be so obvious.

Also, If anyone was wondering where AV1 stands in comparison to VP8 and VP9... I just looked it up after a few years of not paying attention and I guess Google donated VP8 and VP9 to the alliance for open media foundation (AOMedia) in 2015 and they created AV1 and released it in 2018.

While the topic matter is interesting, I feel like obviously synthetic content falls into the “that which was not worth writing, is not worth reading either” trap.

If the authors tone is extremely ChatGPT-esque, I apologize in advance.

I think what stands out to me is this cartoonishly punchy, faux-dramatic framing.

That, and specialist terms that seem to be thrown in there in an empty way, just to signal subject-matter expertise that’s not even expected of a DIYer’s experiment report:

> It’s a multi-decade, billion-dollar street fight over bytes and pixels, waged in the esoteric battlegrounds of DCT blocks and entropy coding

> uses slopbot 9000 to explode his point into ten times the "prose"

> mfw

To be transparent, I was experimenting with a more "punchy," narrative style to weave in some wit and humor. I didn't want the writing to feel dry and was aiming for a flow that was more entertaining. In retrospect, I clearly overshot the mark and ended up with something that feels inauthentic and distracts from the main point.

The experiment and the data are what I was most excited to share, and the writing shouldn't obscure that. Based on this feedback, I'll revise the article to be more direct, cut the fluff, and let the numbers do the talking.

Seriously, I appreciate the reality check! This is a great lesson in "know your audience." :)

Rather than this inflated slop that look like I am trying to reach word count in a paper and one sentence becomes 15 useless ones

Edit: This is not so much commentary on AI than it is the core of your post is a few tables. Just post the tables and one or two sentence of conclusion and that is all ! It is so tedious to read through dozens of paragraph of autogenerated unnecessary nonsense -- that contribute nothing of value to the data

… and so I'll continue to stick with AVC, thanks! :-)

I keep getting a paragraph or two into something, read one of the terrible "It's not just word - it's massive hyperbole!" sentences, see that there are several more in subsequent paragraphs and can't continue.

However bad the author's original writing that generate this output was, it can't be as awful as this.