Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Did a Human or a Computer Write This?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 80 posts

Re: Did a Human or a Computer Write This?

#21

Post by hammerandtongs »

There is a non-zero amount of reporting that would be improved by algorithmic and model driven story generation.

Quite a bit of reporting has become thinly veiled rewrites of press releases, what could be improved by an algorithm that actually had background context and a consistent model for a type of story like a simple preview of a coming game?

The amount of statistics in reporting that lacks any context for the numbers spewed out? Why couldn't a machine do a better job in enforcing context for the numbers?

For example -- "there is a %50 murder increase in the first six months of this year" (common problem with human reporting) vs "there is %50 murder increase from 2 in the first six months of last year to 3 in the first six months of this year, this is down from 20 in the previous year" (an algorithm that automatically enforces context)?

I realize this is a complex topic but wow the average ;) news story is soooo bad that...

Re: Did a Human or a Computer Write This?

#24

Post by TeMPOraL »

hammerandtongs wrote: post #21

There is a non-zero amount of reporting that would be improved by algorithmic and model driven story generation. Quite a bit of reporting has become thinly veiled rewrites of press releases, what could be improved by an algorithm that actually had background context and a consistent model for a type of story like a simple preview of a coming game? The amount of statistics in reporting that lacks any context for the n…

I'm pretty sure they're "soooo bad" on purpose. News sites can get away with blatant lies because no one holds them responsible, and they get the ad-dollars as people are attracted to controversy...

Re: Did a Human or a Computer Write This?

#25

Post by TillE »

MetaCosm wrote: post #18
mod wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got 6/8, but I had already heard of robots writing box-scores (more than one of the questions). I was duped by the old english poetry, and also the novel which was dictating a human experience. I imagined it too difficult to write that for any current type of writing programs. They need to get this technology into spam bots, pronto! http://xkcd.com/810/

The box scores were really good. They are the two that got me, I guess the word complexity is low -- so templating can be high, but they felt to me very human-ish.

A lot of templates and checking for noteworthy conditions. Seems pretty straightforward when you're interpreting a consistently structured set of data, just a lot of grunt work and polishing.

Re: Did a Human or a Computer Write This?

#26

Post by adventured »

There are still far too many obvious tells here.

"Apple’s holiday earnings for 2014 were record shattering."

An algorithm isn't going to use the slightly unusual "holiday earnings" reference (it would have said X quarter or end of year perhaps), it's also not going to understand (yet) that they were record shattering without human direction.

"Benner had a good game at the plate for Hamilton A’s-Forcini. Benner went 2-3, drove in one and scored one run. Benner singled in the third inning and doubled in the fifth inning."

That's maybe the easiest out of all of them. Repeating Benner that way over and over again, is nothing like how a sports writer would write.

Maybe another six to ten years of evolution, and it'll be nearly impossible to tell the difference. It's certainly a significant improvement over what you would have seen ten years ago in this sort of exercise.

Re: Did a Human or a Computer Write This?

#28

Post by dagw »

hammerandtongs wrote: post #21

There is a non-zero amount of reporting that would be improved by algorithmic and model driven story generation. Quite a bit of reporting has become thinly veiled rewrites of press releases, what could be improved by an algorithm that actually had background context and a consistent model for a type of story like a simple preview of a coming game? The amount of statistics in reporting that lacks any context for the n…

You're assuming incompetence where one might very well expect malice or at least interests at odds with the ones you'd prefer.

Re: Did a Human or a Computer Write This?

#29

Post by hammerandtongs »

dagw wrote: post #28
hammerandtongs wrote: post #21

There is a non-zero amount of reporting that would be improved by algorithmic and model driven story generation. Quite a bit of reporting has become thinly veiled rewrites of press releases, what could be improved by an algorithm that actually had background context and a consistent model for a type of story like a simple preview of a coming game? The amount of statistics in reporting that lacks any context for the n…

You're assuming incompetence where one might very well expect malice or at least interests at odds with the ones you'd prefer.

You're right in pointing out that bad actors in media will continue to manipulate with disinformation and low information articles.

There is a very high amount of simple incompetence/too busy/poor training.

I'll point out that in developing models for these types of story generation that work could, in turn, be done to validate that what you are reading passes some minimum bar of information quality.

Re: Did a Human or a Computer Write This?

#30

Post by hurin »

Some of these are clearly computer-generated in a way where the human has done most of the work. Take

“In truth, I’d love to build some verse for you

To churn such verse a billion times a day

So type a new concept for me to chew

I keep all waiting long, I hope you stay.”

Now I'm going to bet a generator algorithm does not actually comprehend the meaning of any that - most likely the generator aspect was filling in some blanks, or picking out one random phrase structure out of pre-coded structures.

Post reply on HN