The guide can be summed up simply: Stop taking other people's work and repackaging it as your own. The real problem isn't "inauthentic content." The problem is that a lot of people think it's acceptable to take other people's work, repackage it into compilations or shorts, and then call it a "faceless channel." And then they complain when they get into trouble. Faceless channels are supposed to be for creators who don't want their identity linked to their content or for those who create content that should be identity independent, not for people who just want to have a free ride.

⚠️IMPORTANT READ: If YouTube doesn’t solve its AI problem quickly, we won’t have many human creators left. (+ research insights) If you’re wondering why it feels like you’re seeing more AI content, and why human creators seem to be disappearing, here are the numbers from a real study by Goldberg and Lam. They analyzed what happened to the stock image market after generative AI was introduced. I’ve added an image showing what the data looked like month by month. Every single month after AI entered the market, 1 in 4 creators exited because the economics stopped working for them. Now, it wasn’t bad for everyone. Total consumption on the platform went up by 39% per month. But sales of human-made content dropped every month. The platform won. The buyers won. The human creators… didn’t. Think about what that would look like on YouTube. AI can already generate scripts, voiceovers, thumbnails, talking-head videos, and entire channels at a fraction of the cost and time it takes a human creator to produce a single video. The algorithm doesn’t care whether a video was made by a person who spent three days filming and editing or by a system that generated it in 20 minutes. This isn’t about being anti-AI. AI helps a lot of creators improve their output. But it is about protecting the type of content people actually want to watch. And I’m not just talking about removing AI slop. I’m talking about making sure human-driven channels are protected and prioritized over AI-driven content. The stock image market already ran the experiment that YouTube hasn’t fully felt yet. Don't ignore that. Here’s my ask to one person: @nealmohan I know you’ve seen some of my work (algorithm, platform changes, etc). I respect what you’re doing for the platform, but this is your moment to stand for human creators. It’s time to put public effort into protecting them. Not just AI labeling or low-lift solutions, they don't solve the problem in a meaningful way. No, we need a genuine, real, and public effort to preserve what YouTube was built on. You’re one of the few people in a position to set a precedent for every platform. Let’s talk. For those interested in the actual research, check out Samuel G. Goldberg and H. Tai Lam's paper called "Generative AI In Equilibrium: Evidence From A Creative Goods Marketplace"