4 ms·

The sole quote responsible for the reworded title is: ''It may be a hundred years before a computer beats humans at Go -- maybe even longer,'' said Dr. Piet Hu

The sole quote responsible for the reworded title is: ''It may be a hundred years before a computer beats humans at Go -- maybe even longer,'' said Dr. Piet Hut, an astrophysicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and a fan of the game. ''If a reasonably intelligent person learned to play Go, in a few months he could beat all existing computer programs. You don't have to be a Kasparov.''

ifdefdebug 11y ago
There is also: "The offer [of a price for beating go champs with a computer] expires in the year 2000. Go programmers are hoping it will be extended for another century or two." Edit: I think the reworded title reflected very well the spirit of that article as a whole, before it was reverted.
dang 11y ago
Right—it's against the HN rules to rewrite a title to single out just one detail. That's a form (actually the leading form) of editorializing. Submitters: if you want to point out what you think is important about an article, the place to do that is in the thread, on a level field with other participants.
- luso_brazilian 11y ago
  Sorry for that, it was unashamedly lifted from another and more generalist site, title and all. Won't happen again.
  - dang 11y ago
    No worries!
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  When it's not a news article, it seems perfectly fair that someone should be able to submit a particular paragraph for conversation, rather than being forced to generically link 'the original source'. There's no necessity to have a level playing field when there is no playing field. There's generally no one else submitting an article if it's 20 years old.
  - luso_brazilian 11y ago
    Actually, given the inspiration source where I got this article it was very likely someone else would post. And someone did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11324885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11324885 Coincidentally with the same title, as that was deliberately crafted to attract attention that very same statement (given the fact that it didn't stand the test of time).
  - dang 11y ago
    The level playing field I'm talking about isn't between multiple submitters, but between the submitter and other users. On HN, submitting a story confers no special rights to frame the discussion for everyone else. Readers here can make up their own minds about what's important in a story. For that it's important (critical, actually) to have accurate, neutral titles that avoid spin.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      > The level playing field I'm talking about isn't between multiple submitters, but between the submitter and other users. On HN, submitting a story confers no special rights to frame the discussion for everyone else. You can't avoid framing. The act of submitting an article frames a discussion around its contents. If you came up with the submission idea by yourself, you are unavoidably privileged in deciding what the discussion is about. If there is a collection of 200-word pages on a site, and I submit one of them, nobody will accuse me of editorializing. But if I try to submit a 200-word segment of a large page, it's a problem. Something's off there. The url structure of a site should not be the determining factor in whether editorializing is happening. > Readers here can make up their own minds about what's important in a story. For that it's important (critical, actually) to have accurate, neutral titles that avoid spin. In many cases, including this one, the story is the important facts. The story here is not "computer played go in 1997". The story is the prediction. Avoiding spin is great, but a title that doesn't mention the story is a bad title.
      - pvg 11y ago
        There's a really simple cure for this - write your own piece pointing out and commenting on what you think is the interesting bit and submit that, with the title of your choosing. Then you absolutely get to frame, comment, editorialize. You just don't get to do it in the submission titles.

ifdefdebug 11y ago

There is also: "The offer [of a price for beating go champs with a computer] expires in the year 2000. Go programmers are hoping it will be extended for another century or two." Edit: I think the reworded title reflected very well the spirit of that article as a whole, before it was reverted.

dang 11y ago

Right—it's against the HN rules to rewrite a title to single out just one detail. That's a form (actually the leading form) of editorializing. Submitters: if you want to point out what you think is important about an article, the place to do that is in the thread, on a level field with other participants.

luso_brazilian 11y ago
Sorry for that, it was unashamedly lifted from another and more generalist site, title and all. Won't happen again.
- dang 11y ago
  No worries!
Dylan16807 11y ago
When it's not a news article, it seems perfectly fair that someone should be able to submit a particular paragraph for conversation, rather than being forced to generically link 'the original source'. There's no necessity to have a level playing field when there is no playing field. There's generally no one else submitting an article if it's 20 years old.
- luso_brazilian 11y ago
  Actually, given the inspiration source where I got this article it was very likely someone else would post. And someone did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11324885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11324885 Coincidentally with the same title, as that was deliberately crafted to attract attention that very same statement (given the fact that it didn't stand the test of time).
- dang 11y ago
  The level playing field I'm talking about isn't between multiple submitters, but between the submitter and other users. On HN, submitting a story confers no special rights to frame the discussion for everyone else. Readers here can make up their own minds about what's important in a story. For that it's important (critical, actually) to have accurate, neutral titles that avoid spin.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    > The level playing field I'm talking about isn't between multiple submitters, but between the submitter and other users. On HN, submitting a story confers no special rights to frame the discussion for everyone else. You can't avoid framing. The act of submitting an article frames a discussion around its contents. If you came up with the submission idea by yourself, you are unavoidably privileged in deciding what the discussion is about. If there is a collection of 200-word pages on a site, and I submit one of them, nobody will accuse me of editorializing. But if I try to submit a 200-word segment of a large page, it's a problem. Something's off there. The url structure of a site should not be the determining factor in whether editorializing is happening. > Readers here can make up their own minds about what's important in a story. For that it's important (critical, actually) to have accurate, neutral titles that avoid spin. In many cases, including this one, the story is the important facts. The story here is not "computer played go in 1997". The story is the prediction. Avoiding spin is great, but a title that doesn't mention the story is a bad title.
    - pvg 11y ago
      There's a really simple cure for this - write your own piece pointing out and commenting on what you think is the interesting bit and submit that, with the title of your choosing. Then you absolutely get to frame, comment, editorialize. You just don't get to do it in the submission titles.