Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study analyzes a decade of Korean Go commentary on YouTube, focusing on how AI systems like KataGo have become integral to expert practice while their presence in discourse has diminished. Despite AI winrate graphs being visible for 98% of broadcast time, verbal references to AI account for only 2.63% of commentary, indicating a shift towards a more domesticated form of AI mediation. The authors introduce a typology of source-foregrounding versus source-receding mediation, highlighting the implications for audience engagement and contestability in AI-driven analysis.
The decline in verbal references to AI in Go commentary reveals a troubling trend towards uncritical acceptance of machine judgment.
When AI systems surpass elite human performance and settle into everyday expert practice, the question that follows is how machine judgment is made publicly intelligible and attributable. We study Korean Go commentary on YouTube, where AI systems such as KataGo became standard analytic tools after AlphaGo. Our corpus spans a decade (2016--2025) and approximately $1{,}900$ hours of footage across institutional broadcasters and creator-led channels, in four phases of AI availability. We document a widening asymmetry between visual and verbal AI presence: AI winrate graphs are visible for about $98\%$ of late-period institutional broadcast time, yet AI-salient talk accounts for only $2.63\%$ of sentences. What recedes is the source label, not the metric: winrate and point-gap talk persists while ``AI''itself goes unsaid. We read this recession as the communicative signature of domestication. Our strongest evidence is a compositional shift in verbal mediation: explicit naming gives way to interface rendering, and creator-led commentary leans further toward it than institutional commentary. We develop a typology distinguishing source-foregrounding from source-receding mediation, and argue that the two preserve different hooks of contestability: discursive anchors through which audiences can recognize and question the machine source. The stakes of that difference rise in domains where AI is less reliable than in Go.
