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

In Case You Wondered, a Real Human Wrote This Column

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: In Case You Wondered, a Real Human Wrote This Column

#21

Post by TorKlingberg »

I wonder if these automatically generated articles will ever become good enough to be worth reading. Currently, they seem to be just good enough to fool Google, and convince people to click the link. Do any sports fans bookmark and come back to these sites?

No matter how good the algorithms get, they are still limited by their input, the statistics. If for example a player scores a very unusual goal, say a bicycle kick in soccer, then a real writer who actually saw the match would surely mention it. An algorithm could not if there is no field for unusual goal in the match statistics.

Re: In Case You Wondered, a Real Human Wrote This Column

#22

Post by andrewljohnson »

jellicle wrote: post #19

What this article doesn't tell you is that the human who wrote it works for Narrative Science. For those who don't know, if you see a story in your local paper, and it doesn't involve a car crash, crime, weather, or sports, it was probably placed there by a PR representative. Most of the things you read are not the result of random reporters deciding to cover X or Y, but a paid, concerted effort to place story X or Y…

That's a jaded and misguided view of the world. Very few reporters will accept articles written by others, and they predominantly work for trade rags, not the New York Times.

Re: In Case You Wondered, a Real Human Wrote This Column

#23

Post by dsplittgerber »

andrewljohnson wrote: post #22
jellicle wrote: post #19

What this article doesn't tell you is that the human who wrote it works for Narrative Science. For those who don't know, if you see a story in your local paper, and it doesn't involve a car crash, crime, weather, or sports, it was probably placed there by a PR representative. Most of the things you read are not the result of random reporters deciding to cover X or Y, but a paid, concerted effort to place story X or Y…

That's a jaded and misguided view of the world. Very few reporters will accept articles written by others, and they predominantly work for trade rags, not the New York Times.

Please tell me you read that article and didn't find it odd how extremely one-sided and positive it was.

Also, it happens all the time. And with a publishing machine as big as the NYT, it's bound to happen there as well. Remember Jayson Blair? Different symptom, same cause.

Re: In Case You Wondered, a Real Human Wrote This Column

#24

Post by SwellJoe »

jellicle wrote: post #19

What this article doesn't tell you is that the human who wrote it works for Narrative Science. For those who don't know, if you see a story in your local paper, and it doesn't involve a car crash, crime, weather, or sports, it was probably placed there by a PR representative. Most of the things you read are not the result of random reporters deciding to cover X or Y, but a paid, concerted effort to place story X or Y…

The Submarine, by pg: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Re: In Case You Wondered, a Real Human Wrote This Column

#25

Post by [deleted] »

lexicon wrote: post #3

This is a recent email I got from Facebook Support team regarding a vanity url for my business. I could swear this guy is a robot or a script, and I wonder if Facebook is using the technology described in the article: ---------------- We’re sorry, but we’re unable to process your request because another entity has made a previous request concerning this username. If you are still interested in claiming the username,…

[deleted]

Re: In Case You Wondered, a Real Human Wrote This Column

#26

Post by SwellJoe »

kiba wrote: post #6

These technological advances made me shudder about the potential job loss of the future even though the previous technological advances created new jobs. Sure, there's no way that my profession and the great majority of jobs on the internet would be possible if we rely on human switchboard operators rather than relying on automation. That doesn't mean it will be true for the next advances in technology, does it?

This has been a common fear in the face of pretty much every new technology. All past holders of this view have been proven incorrect. Do you want to bet that today (or tomorrow, or next month) is the first time in all of history that it will be correct?

Re: In Case You Wondered, a Real Human Wrote This Column

#27

Post by RobbieStats »

TorKlingberg wrote: post #21

I wonder if these automatically generated articles will ever become good enough to be worth reading. Currently, they seem to be just good enough to fool Google, and convince people to click the link. Do any sports fans bookmark and come back to these sites? No matter how good the algorithms get, they are still limited by their input, the statistics. If for example a player scores a very unusual goal, say a bicycle ki…

Still a long way to go, but the content is getting better. Here is a recent article from StatSheet: http://bosoxball.com/boston-red-sox/game-recap/red-sox-defea...

Re: In Case You Wondered, a Real Human Wrote This Column

#28

Post by [deleted] »

dsplittgerber wrote: post #23
andrewljohnson wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a jaded and misguided view of the world. Very few reporters will accept articles written by others, and they predominantly work for trade rags, not the New York Times.

Please tell me you read that article and didn't find it odd how extremely one-sided and positive it was. Also, it happens all the time. And with a publishing machine as big as the NYT, it's bound to happen there as well. Remember Jayson Blair? Different symptom, same cause.

[deleted]

Re: In Case You Wondered, a Real Human Wrote This Column

#29

Post by RobbieStats »

jellicle wrote: post #19

What this article doesn't tell you is that the human who wrote it works for Narrative Science. For those who don't know, if you see a story in your local paper, and it doesn't involve a car crash, crime, weather, or sports, it was probably placed there by a PR representative. Most of the things you read are not the result of random reporters deciding to cover X or Y, but a paid, concerted effort to place story X or Y…

There was a similar type of NYT article written about StatSheet last November that had the right amount of skepticism and optimism: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28digi.html

Automating long-form narrative content is a relatively new concept. It's not perfect (yet) so I appreciate the skeptics.

Re: In Case You Wondered, a Real Human Wrote This Column

#30

Post by artursapek »

jellicle wrote: post #19

What this article doesn't tell you is that the human who wrote it works for Narrative Science. For those who don't know, if you see a story in your local paper, and it doesn't involve a car crash, crime, weather, or sports, it was probably placed there by a PR representative. Most of the things you read are not the result of random reporters deciding to cover X or Y, but a paid, concerted effort to place story X or Y…

I was wondering why a newspaper would so positively cover a company trying to outsource reporters' jobs to machines. "In Case You're Wondering, A Real PR Person Wrote This Column."
Post reply on HN