Can the Computers at Narrative Science Replace Paid Writers?

Narrative Science will certainly replace some types of human-generated writing, the stories they're most excited about are the ones journalists rarely cover. Because of readership expectations, no journalist would write a story with relevance to only one person, or a few—sports writers, for instance, don't write about Little League games in the first place. Instead of simply tallying wrong answers, your kid's standardized test results make highly specific study suggestions—in language that would do an English teacher proud. Log in to check your portfolio, you'll get an expert analysis on how your stocks are doing, with suggestions on what to trade our buy. As Slate's Evgeny Morozov notes in a recent article, "automated journalism" could result in news stories appearing differently to different readers. As Narrative Science continues refining and improving their authoring platform, two future grails stand out. First, Hammond would like to be able to train the platform to look for conclusions that haven't yet occurred to human clients. It can only report on story possibilities that human programmers have trained it to "see." Second, they hope to move beyond numbers. Though humans delve in stories and narratives, computers are simply much more adept with numbers. Further developments in computer understanding of human language could blow the current technology open. When Narrative Science can scan written documents with the same comprehension it brings to number sets, its viability increases dramatically. Read more herehere