gargantuan anime boobs

Bob Bly recently wrote about computers and writers. I commented there about a poem on spell checkers. It’s been around the Net for years. In case you missed it, here it is…

It certainly would be one way to solve the overwhelming bias that we see in the media when the AP refers to Congressman Patrick Kennedy (Sen. Ted Kennedy’s son) as the nephew of the late President Kennedy, after the news of his drunk driving episode.

After all, the last example of a robot with emotion was DATA from Star Trek - The Next Generation.

Think Google News, and that’s not the most sophisticated filter out there, though it does a pretty good job.

I wrote a piece for Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact back in 1992 called “When Dinosaurs Ruled the Airwaves” that speculated, among other things, about advanced computers being able to act as smart filters for broadcast news. (It’s archived at http://bytemeonline.blogspot.com/dinosruled.html). But good writing touches emotions, and I haven’t yet seen any computer software sophisticated enough to do that with the written word.

#2 would be an opportunity, not a detriment. Let the computer take the first cut; it still requires a pro to make it readable and to connect with the reader.

Afterward I laughed about it — how can software write an ad? — but then realized that this type of scenario is closer than we all know. The fact that most B2B copy out there sounds the same means it is very easy for a “bot” to write it.

Did you see David Scott’s recent blog post about marketing gobbledygook?

I don’t think it’s that easy for computers to replace people in writing, in fact, not even for any other editorial work. I perform translation from the English Language to the Chinese Language, and vice versa, and I understand that translation software simply cannot replace translators made of flesh and blood (well, among many other things). I’m not saying translation is easier than journalistic writing, but at least original contents are available for the translator to tell the same story in another language. Yet, that has proven tough for machines. I don’t know of the differences between English and French or German or Spanish, but I know that English and Chinese are worlds apart in many ways. With all the complex and multi-layered nuances in different languages, Software today simply cannot do it right by themselves. That’s why translation editors are still required. For journalists, they have to write fresh stories instead of telling one that’s already been told. I don’t see how machines can be smart enough to do that, not at least during my lifetime. They can generate reports based on templates, I’m sure, but not producing intriguing and engaging stories that will captivate you and me.

I think skilled writers will do well, regardless of where they are physically located.

My take it this. There are a lot of crappy writers in the U.S. They better refine their craft or become a Wal-Mart greeter.

Mike

I seem to remember you once had a great spoof on spellchecking in your newsletter. It demonstrated how relying on technology to think for us leads to disasters. A reviewer in Writer’s Digest of a then-new product that checked grammar (before word processors had that option… I have mine shut off!) said, “If a computer can improve my writing… I deserve it!”

The same thing goes for a miscreation like White Smoke that claims to automatically improve your writing. (Check out a review at http://tinyurl.com/y38e9t)

Chess is science, not art. A computer can play chess, but neither a computer, nor a million monkeys can write Hamlet. That’s part of why blogs are so popular. No, they are not Shakespeare. But they have more of a human sound than the marketing speak of corporate websites or collateral material.

For that matter, computers have yet to replace even technical writers. It takes a human connection (not interface!) to understand what the reader needs to know.

And yes, we still need your books too, Bob. Even if you don’t!