[methodin]

Random thoughts:

  * Facts delivered with arbitrary fluff words is pointless even when written by a human - it obfuscates the
    real purpose which is the data
  * Companies pay humans to deliver articles in most cases and the bias of the writer or the institution
    that paid for it shines through. I cannot find a real difference between intentional angling by
    payment or by algorithm
  * When the day arises where computers could generate actually new, intelligent and thoughtful pieces I
    for one will be very interested in reading them. Sadly there would be millions of variations that could
    occur at an astounding pace. We'd then need algorithms to filter the generated content for the things
    that are really noteworthy.
  * News at its core is a sequence of facts which begs the question if we really need the cruft around
    those facts which can often lead to misinterpretation?

[drawkbox]

True but think about this though, Hunter S. Thompson started out as a sports writer. Sports is a big area where this is used currently. Gonzo journalism wouldn't have even been a thing if it was all robo-writing at the time.

I think it comes down to flavor/style. Even in food for instance, yes a robot can make a meal but a chef can make a dish (maybe later reproduced by robots but still). There will always be a need for style, which is really hard to automate.

[lspress]

Unless the writer with style is the one training the AI...