Message
|
Thu Mar-22-12 09:27 PMby Wandering Author
I know you weren't talking about AIs. But I simply don't believe that the computers and programming that we have now can 'write' anything beyond the dry, factual articles and 'books' that are presently being generated. Even those factual pieces are hardly shining examples of journalism or anything else. And fiction is a lot tougher to get right, even if non-fiction can be tougher to make really interesting.
Now, obviously, neither of us knows for sure. You could be entirely right, and I could be wrong. There's no way I can think of to prove my negative, and unless (or until) what you predict actually becomes reality, there's no way to prove your prediction either. But if there's any potential for more, I haven't seen any indications of it.
Are there patterns in fiction? Undoubtedly. The ones computers could extract would be too broad and vague to build good fiction on, at least as far as I understand what you're saying. At best, a generator might be written which would throw together a clumsy skeleton of a story for a writer to flesh out. And any of the attempts at doing that I've seen aren't very good. I think, to do the kind of analysis you're talking about, you'd need an AI, or close to it. Look at Google, and what they're capable of. Translate has gotten a bit better, but it still can't even get that right - and that's with a lot of human tweaking of the algorithm, and all of the Googlplex's massive resources behind it. They're still struggling to understand the context of words well enough to provide really relevant search results. (Try searching for just about any term with several meanings; if you don't happen to want the most easily 'monetised' one, you'll have to wade through a lot of junk to get where you want to be - or craft a very careful, targeted search to get there.)
~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~
|
POST DISABLED 
