What robots, what computers
The author hits you with some colloquial language – “Yup, four” – in a way that seems familiar. Friendly. They compare costs directly to a grocery bill, something a computer would have to be told directly to suggest. Or, similarly: article example 2 Again, the author talks to you like, well, like a human being would talk to you. Like a coworker would talk to you in the hallway or a friend at the bar. Are they giving you good information? Absolutely. Anyone can use marketing and up-selling tips, even if it’s just to move some out of date storage room clutter on Amazon.But they’re not telling you anything but impersonal hard numbers. They’re doing Phone Number List it with flavor. And humanity. And that’s what software can’t do quite yet. A particularly popular example going around right now is the work of Botnik studios, who created an entirely procedurally generated chapter of Harry Potter. While the work was ambitious and definitely entertaining, I don’t know that I’d ever call it a best-seller. Or coherent. pasted image 0 3 That’s one of the real flaws in computer-generated writing.
https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/qBf3pbDX58YZzy7gUmvmpM7DkBmZEGQ215QnhebM-lkZkxAEh_f3RhKe0sV6U4ZQmc2H-7Jj__-F-KXUXKEl8-0aQH36hUUE9qOw354T8gkypW8zIh5nCNZTMAZEDNBz4DJ2CnFP6s3fcEhOMAqO0HI
It can generate the words, the statistics, the analysis, but what it can’t do is come up with ideas. All it can do is spit out what it’s been told to create. It’s one of the reasons that creative jobs are, compared to the rest of the work field, one of the safest ones around. pasted image 0 1 (Image Source) The demand for “creative” jobs is expected to increase 8% in America by 2030. Not a massive jump, admittedly, but when compared to office.
頁:
[1]