4 ms·

It's a "human interest" type of documentary which means it's deliberately structured as an "emotional narrative". I think it's fair to say that a lot of "no-no

by jasode 7y ago

It's a "human interest" type of documentary which means it's deliberately structured as an "emotional narrative". I think it's fair to say that a lot of "no-nonsense-just-give-me-the-facts" viewers in the HN demographic would find this type of film very unsatisfying. I.e. lots of interviews with virtually no technical explanations. I quickly scrubbed the film and it looks like it's the same footage from the AlphaGo documentary I saw ~2 years ago: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6700846/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6700846/ I don't know if this new video url dated "2020" is a different film or if they simply enhanced the 2017 documentary with new footage.

okareaman 7y ago
> a lot of "no-nonsense-just-give-me-the-facts" viewers in the HN demographic would find this type of film very unsatisfying I disagree with this assertion. The film explores the idea that AlphaGo, like the game of Go itself, raises a lot of questions about what it means to be human. The relationship between AI and humans is developing and a topic of intense interest, especially among the HN crowd. I think what you might be saying is people with a high IQ but low EQ might not relate to this film. I'm sitting here wondering if people like that don't find human/AI intersection interesting because they are already mostly like a computer program themselves so it's not a big deal.
- jasode 7y ago
  >, raises a lot of questions about what it means to be human. The relationship between AI and humans is developing and a topic of intense interest, especially among the HN crowd. We're talking about 2 different things: the importance of the topic vs the the method of exposition. You're emphasizing the topic's importance. I'm not disagreeing with that. Instead, I'm explaining that the documentary's style of exposition would be a turnoff to a subset of the HN demographic. As example showing differences in how Battle of Midway can be explained... Here's the "personality-driven" type of history documentary. Scrub the video and you'll see there's a lot of video showing the narrators walking around the beach and flying in helicopters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo9wrUcb8jI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo9wrUcb8jI To be fair, some viewers need attractive people talking to the camera to make history "interesting". What does an attractive man walking along the beach have to do with explaining strategy and tactics at Midway?!? Nothing. Maybe some viewers need "eye candy" to go along with their medicine of history. Basically, all of The History Channel is structured as personality-driven type of documentaries with a human-interest angle. Compare that to another style of delivery with no video of talking heads but has a voice-over with maps and higher information content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo If HN viewers want the 2nd style of documentary for AlphaGo, this thread's url is not it. The importance of "what it means to be human" is orthogonal to the method of explanation.
  - okareaman 7y ago
    Thanks. I understand now.

by jasode 7y ago

okareaman 7y ago

> a lot of "no-nonsense-just-give-me-the-facts" viewers in the HN demographic would find this type of film very unsatisfying I disagree with this assertion. The film explores the idea that AlphaGo, like the game of Go itself, raises a lot of questions about what it means to be human. The relationship between AI and humans is developing and a topic of intense interest, especially among the HN crowd. I think what you might be saying is people with a high IQ but low EQ might not relate to this film. I'm sitting here wondering if people like that don't find human/AI intersection interesting because they are already mostly like a computer program themselves so it's not a big deal.

jasode 7y ago
>, raises a lot of questions about what it means to be human. The relationship between AI and humans is developing and a topic of intense interest, especially among the HN crowd. We're talking about 2 different things: the importance of the topic vs the the method of exposition. You're emphasizing the topic's importance. I'm not disagreeing with that. Instead, I'm explaining that the documentary's style of exposition would be a turnoff to a subset of the HN demographic. As example showing differences in how Battle of Midway can be explained... Here's the "personality-driven" type of history documentary. Scrub the video and you'll see there's a lot of video showing the narrators walking around the beach and flying in helicopters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo9wrUcb8jI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo9wrUcb8jI To be fair, some viewers need attractive people talking to the camera to make history "interesting". What does an attractive man walking along the beach have to do with explaining strategy and tactics at Midway?!? Nothing. Maybe some viewers need "eye candy" to go along with their medicine of history. Basically, all of The History Channel is structured as personality-driven type of documentaries with a human-interest angle. Compare that to another style of delivery with no video of talking heads but has a voice-over with maps and higher information content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo If HN viewers want the 2nd style of documentary for AlphaGo, this thread's url is not it. The importance of "what it means to be human" is orthogonal to the method of explanation.
- okareaman 7y ago
  Thanks. I understand now.