Something has noticeably changed in the YouTube experience. A recent analysis points to a notable change in the type of videos that make their way into the feed, with a high presence of content generated with artificial intelligence and with Spain standing out within that context. We are not talking about a passing fad or experimental creativity, but rather a pattern that responds to how attention is rewarded today.
To understand what we are talking about, it is worth clarifying the terms that are repeated in the studies. “AI slop” is used to describe automatically generated videos, with very low standards and designed to be mass produced, prioritizing quantity over content. “Brainrot” expands that idea and encompasses pieces that, with or without artificial intelligence, seek to retain the viewer based on repetitive stimuli and without a clear narrative. They are controversial labels, but useful to describe a type of content designed above all to attract attention.
How the phenomenon has been measured. To put numbers on this trend, Kapwing reviewed the 100 YouTube channels considered “trending” in each country through Playboard and isolated those it identified as AI slop. From there, it collected public data on views, subscribers, and estimated revenue with Social Blade and aggregated it by country. Additionally, the team created a new YouTube account and reviewed the first 500 Shorts in the feed to see what a user with no previous history finds.
What exactly does the data say about Spain. When breaking down the results by country, Spain stands out for a very specific reason. Channels of this type that fall into the “trend” category accumulate more than 20 million subscribers, more than any other country analyzed. However, the number of channels is small. The study itself indicates that this combination reveals a strong concentration of audience in few profiles, a key factor to understand why Spain appears so high in the ranking.
The comparative analysis shows that there is no single global pattern. There are countries that stand out for the number of channels identified, others for the total number of views and others for the loyalty of their audiences. South Korea, for example, has a much higher number of views than the rest, while the United States is among the first in terms of aggregate volume of followers. This diversity reinforces a central idea of the report: the impact of this type of content depends both on the local ecosystem and how algorithms respond in each market.
Patterns that repeat in the videos. When reviewing this content, very recognizable formulas appear: animals with human features and cartoon aesthetics, with an almost photographic finish, placed in “story” mini-scenes that can be understood in seconds. Examples usually include baby monkeys that star in emotional or exaggerated situations, animals that “save” people in impossible accidents, or everyday scenes turned into fables, such as a cat shopping in a market. The Guardian highlights that many pieces dispense with a clear narrative and work by immediate impact, repetition and familiarity, three ingredients that fit well with the logic of the feed.
Why this model is attractive. According to The Guardian, many creators approach this type of content not out of creative affinity, but out of pure profitability. Automated tools reduce costs and allow you to test ideas almost unlimitedly, while monetization programs promise income that is difficult to match in other local jobs. The result is a constant trial logic, where what works is replicated and what doesn’t is discarded, in an environment in which the algorithm decides more than the author.
Regardless of who produces these videos, the impact is clearly perceived from the other side of the screen. Kapwing created a new account and counted the first 500 Shorts in the feed: 104 were AI-generated content, 21%, and 165 fit into “brainrot”, 33%. The Guardian summarizes that finding as “more than 20%” of AI slop in a new user experience. The data does not allow us to describe all of YouTube, but it does suggest that this material is part of the initial menu offered by the algorithm.
The official response and its limits. YouTube maintained in statements to the aforementioned newspaper that videos generated with AI must meet the same standards as any other content and that it acts when its policies are violated. However, the platform does not offer public figures that allow us to know how many views correspond to this type of materials or how they influence the total. This opacity forces us to rely on external studies and leaves open the question of whether the algorithm prioritizes these videos or simply reflects their proliferation.
Images | Ganes AI official 5286 | Lily Video AI | Dipto Fun Tv | Sparks Adventures (YouTube) | Kapwing
In WorldOfSoftware | We believed that Stack Overflow was essential for programming. AI is proving the opposite
