Wiston Papers
Are Computers Better Journalists Than People?
I've commented on this before and my original opinions are virtually unchanged. But as the technology continues to evolve I've expanded my reaction accordingly. Tom Petner in his The 247 Newsroom had an item about Narrative Science--a company that uses algorithms to write news stories.
It's not surprising that computers began writing sports stories. Let's be honest, sports reporting and writing are the lowest forms of journalism in terms of the intelligence, discipline and sophistication required to produce them. (Groan and shout all you wish, but I'm deaf so I can ignore you).
Any basic Artificial Intelligence (AI) software program can do the job of a sports reporter as well if not better than humans beings. That's why the first experiments began there.
However, the article points out that AI has moved into other areas that--in the views of the innovators--demand not much more sophisticated reporting, e.g. stock market and financial quotations, routine weather summaries, and very basic traffic stories. I agree. Not much required there. That's not a criticism.
The challenge is whether AI can create a long-form story with all the necessary cultural and social understanding, topic antecedents and contemporary context to clearly explain the subject matter and relate it to the needs and interests of the audience? No...at least not today.
I was most struck by the section that describes how the software engineers "tweeked" the program to match the interest of their clients. But isn't just editing? Really, it's what editors do when they look at your story and suggest changes
Two final thoughts. First, surprisingly, I'm not really bothered by this development. As long as human minds are at important or key points along the path from gathering to publication to review content and make changes...especially for in-depth reporting.
But for today's 24/7 deadlines and endless pressure to publish across platforms, AI may be the solution. As long as reporters can accurately gather necessary facts and information then feed them into the program, the resulting stories may be as good or better than people produce. At least for simple stories.
Second, is a personal note. When I was a graduate students more than 40 years ago at Iowa State University, there was a young professor Jerry Nelson who predicted that computers would revolutionize the way we taught and practiced journalism. Many of us scoffed.
Decades later when I began my university career at Iowa State, I taught a class with Jerry. That was in the early 1980s and even then he was experimenting with computer-generated writing. In one assignment he required students to cover a story then enter their information into a software program he had developed. Although primitive by today’s standards, those first computer-generated stories were quite remarkable.
I hope that when the history of AI and journalism is written Jerry gets the credit he deserves.
Steve Coon
April 26, 2012
It's not surprising that computers began writing sports stories. Let's be honest, sports reporting and writing are the lowest forms of journalism in terms of the intelligence, discipline and sophistication required to produce them. (Groan and shout all you wish, but I'm deaf so I can ignore you).
Any basic Artificial Intelligence (AI) software program can do the job of a sports reporter as well if not better than humans beings. That's why the first experiments began there.
However, the article points out that AI has moved into other areas that--in the views of the innovators--demand not much more sophisticated reporting, e.g. stock market and financial quotations, routine weather summaries, and very basic traffic stories. I agree. Not much required there. That's not a criticism.
The challenge is whether AI can create a long-form story with all the necessary cultural and social understanding, topic antecedents and contemporary context to clearly explain the subject matter and relate it to the needs and interests of the audience? No...at least not today.
I was most struck by the section that describes how the software engineers "tweeked" the program to match the interest of their clients. But isn't just editing? Really, it's what editors do when they look at your story and suggest changes
Two final thoughts. First, surprisingly, I'm not really bothered by this development. As long as human minds are at important or key points along the path from gathering to publication to review content and make changes...especially for in-depth reporting.
But for today's 24/7 deadlines and endless pressure to publish across platforms, AI may be the solution. As long as reporters can accurately gather necessary facts and information then feed them into the program, the resulting stories may be as good or better than people produce. At least for simple stories.
Second, is a personal note. When I was a graduate students more than 40 years ago at Iowa State University, there was a young professor Jerry Nelson who predicted that computers would revolutionize the way we taught and practiced journalism. Many of us scoffed.
Decades later when I began my university career at Iowa State, I taught a class with Jerry. That was in the early 1980s and even then he was experimenting with computer-generated writing. In one assignment he required students to cover a story then enter their information into a software program he had developed. Although primitive by today’s standards, those first computer-generated stories were quite remarkable.
I hope that when the history of AI and journalism is written Jerry gets the credit he deserves.
Steve Coon
April 26, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment