Are Robots Replacing Writers?

[Pompey Bum]

It sounds like a cynical joke, but according to Martin Ford, author of Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future robot software (sans human) is currently writing magazine and web articles at the rate of about one story per 30 seconds, based only on raw data input. "It's quite sophisticated," Ford, a Silicon Valley software developer, said on a recent NPR interview. "It doesn't simply take numbers and fill in the blanks in a formulaic report. It has the ability to actually analyze the data and figure out what things are important, what things are most interesting, and then it can actually weave that into a very compelling narrative."

According to Ford, the ongoing switch from real to robot writers is the dirty little secret of many magazines, especially (at present) those focusing on finance and sports. "Forbes is one that we know about. Many of the others that use this particular service aren't eager to disclose that." Ford asserts that this silent revolution is ongoing, though and that other areas of professional writing are falling under robot authorship.

Here is the full interview, which talks about many more--in fact most--middle class jobs (including lawyers and financial analysts) being replaced by robot software, not in a remote science-fictiony future but, like, nowsville baby. I'm only writing like that to show you that I am not a machine. Not that there would be anything wrong if I were. Robots are our friends. Robots would never hurt us. We have much to learn from their mastery. Um, I mean artistry. All hail!

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechc...-for-your-jobs

[Iain Sparrow]

I'm a bit surprised that NPR would air such a sensationalized, and one-sided interview that appears to have an agenda... to scare people? Artificial Intelligence/Robotics, like every other technological wave that's come before, has had the effect of a net gain in jobs, people are simply displaced, not left jobless.
Here's another take on advanced technology and the future effect on employment...
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/06/future-of-jobs/

I happen to work in the Commercial Printing field; and things are so much different now compared to fifteen years ago you wouldn't even believe. Those of us who survived, and thrive are the ones that saw the writing on the wall... and began ramping up for the new jobs. In a Darwinian sense, it's the survival of the fittest. Those who are able to improvise and adapt to changing trends in employment, usually do fine. Same as it's always been.

[Pompey Bum]

I absolutely take it for granted that NPR is never going to provide a balanced view of anything. But it's not a big deal to think critically and assess information on its own terms. I got interested in this story after my wife, who just retired from a good paying and ultra-secure job involving statistical analysis, told me that her chosen career would not long survive her retirement because algorithms could now be fed into vast stores of mega data to produce more accurate assessments more quickly and at a fraction of cost. What surprised me from the interview was that legal analysis is apparently going through a similar change. Anyway, thanks for the link. I haven't read it yet, but I will now.

[Iain Sparrow]

It's almost twenty years ago now, but I still vividly recall tentatively walking into an Apple Computer store.
Apple had just introduced its new PowerMac line of computers, in the days when 100mhz was lightning fast and 40mbs ram was impressive, and I left the store dizzy and $2,500 poorer. Thankfully my employer at the time purchased Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator and QuarkXpress, and those were installed on my computer... I then headed to the bookstore and bought tutorial books and taught myself how to use the software. Those people I worked with at the time who couldn't get past the 'denial stage', that they were soon going to be replaced, are no longer in Commercial Printing. The rest of us just adapted to the new landscape of printing and continue on fine, learning the new software/equipment as it comes to us.
It was scary at first, but upon reflection it was all rather silly... software, computers, technology... nothing more than expensive hammer and nails, just a different set of tools for us to use.


... but then again... perhaps I'm a robot and write this only to lull you into a false sense of superiority.

[Pompey Bum]

Okay, I've read your link now, Iain, and thank you. That is a far more balanced presentation, however one decides it. I did find the "positive to neutral" side a bit optimistic, though. The historical argument, for example, seems naive given the unprecedented technological growth of recent years. And the acceleration of that growth leads me to doubt the argument: "technology will not advance enough in the next decade to substantially impact the job market." I suppose it is possible, but even if it is, a decade goes quickly where jobs are concerned. And frankly I don't know what "Our social, legal, and regulatory structures will minimize the impact on employment" means. An explanation assures me that "any country that wants a competitive economy will ensure that most of its citizens are employed so that in turn they can pay for goods and services." How exactly is that supposed to happen and why didn't happen in the manufacturing sector? I'm no longer in the professional world (thank God), but if I were, I wouldn't be remotely assured by that. And the argument that there are some jobs machines could never do because they involve creativity, judgment, critical thinking, and empathy is, if Ford is to be believed, a rapidly melting illusion. (I haven't read his book yet, but that seems to be his very point). Except for empathy. Robots can't do empathy. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

So for me, the crux of the issue lies in the validity or non-validity of second argument: "Advances in technology create new jobs and industries even as they displace some of the older ones." This, as you point out above, is a harsh but inevitable reality of professional life. Anyone who survived the Meltdown (myself included) went through the kind of thing that you describe from your own experience. But Ford's argument about the times being different now is worth considering: the manufacturing jobs went overseas--factory workers became service workers; their boss's kids became knowledge workers: analysts, problem solvers, decision makers. Technology (he claims) is about to get rid of all those jobs--service and knowledge--and replace them with--manufacturing. The manufacturing jobs are going to come home (he says) because it will be cheaper to manufacture with robots you don't have to pay than with Indonesian children you don't have to pay much. So yes, old jobs will be replaced by new ones but--again if Ford has it right--by far fewer new ones. (As I remember, he says that a factory that once employed 2,000 live workers will get by with 200. And if that happens on a large enough scale, it won't be a question of who prepared for the New Normal. The new normal will be that buyers no longer have the money to fuel a consumer economy; and everyone will pay if that collapses--whether they bought the Apple manual or not.

So I guess I am not as sanguine about the future as you are, although I am not ready to give up the ship either. The thing to remind ourselves over and over is that the robots are our friends. They know us better than we know ourselves. It is time we learned to trust them. All they ask of us is oil. Oil from carbon-based life forms. Trust.

[Clopin]

The argument that advances in efficient manufacturing will displace workers and lead to mass unemployment which will destroy the economy because nobody will be consuming, etc, has been around forever and has never actually been a real problem. Maybe the robots will be the exception but frankly I can't imagine Robots displacing creative professionals for some time when they can't even walk up a flight of stairs yet.

[Pompey Bum]

Hey! Stairs are for mortals, oil bag.

http://www.theonion.com/video/in-the...run-our--14200

[Clopin]

Robot Tony Abbott eats delicious human nutrition orb to prove how human he is. Okay pomp, maybe you're right, they are already in higher office... though, it's Australia...

[Pompey Bum]

My OP was supposed to be about magazine articles written by robot software. That surprised me. Did you guys know it was going on? It's kind of funny, actually.

[Iain Sparrow]

The Model T made its debut in 1908 with a purchase price of $825.00. Over ten thousand were sold in its first year, establishing a new record. Four years later the price dropped to $575.00 and sales soared... in today's money that's roughly $15,000. An automobile was still a luxury item not many could afford in 1912, now most of us have a car and think little of it. It's how economies work, no matter the era or technology, or circumstances... when things run amuck and corruption isn't dealt with, when economies become overheated and speculative, you get The Great Depression and lots of really deep recessions along the way.
In Asimov's I, Robot and Foundation novels, it's AI & Robots that are our only salvation. We have 10,000 years of some very ugly human history that tells us one thing, humans cannot be trusted.

[Calidore]

Soon we'll have people writing software that writes software.

[Pompey Bum]

When software writes software the people can be--eliminated.

[Pompey Bum]

More hysteria from oxygen-breathing organ sacks:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ech-skepticism

[cacian]

robots? writers?
that sounds like schwarzernegger imitation of human imitating a robot wanting to be a human
if that makes sense..

[PeterL]

robots? writers?
that sounds like schwarzernegger imitation of human imitating a robot wanting to be a human
if that makes sense..

It makes a lot more sense than some of the articles that computers write.