This is fun, I guess. I've seen other posts on this blog as well. It's all moderately interesting, but with the best ones filtered to the top by a human, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? Seems like wasted research dollars, to me.
Slashdot Media can excise the last trappings of their crappy editorbase and the level of gibberish in headlines and article synopsis' will look no different! Be sure to email Slashdot Media's parent company and voice your approval for their elimination!:)
Likely it's the "curly quote"... which only brings up more questions. Did this user type their response into Word and copy-paste it into slashdot? Before you say "Nobody would ever do that"..... walk a few years in my life. Observe others... The doc says so long as I stop asking "Why?" the anyurisms will likely stay away.
This is an insight into the future where many news articles will be written by robots. The fact that it produces some odd output is useful data that we can learn from.
It's also interesting to see how much certain words and ideas crop up. Lots of people suing each other.
1. "Experiment" was the wrong terminology to use, it's nothing but humor. 2. Don't think of it as writing future headlines, think of it more as writing headlines that "could have occurred" in such and such decade. Like, "here's a joke about headlines on Slashdot in the 90s." You couldn't base a whole tv show on it, of course -- "That Slashdot 90s Show", anyone?
It did go to show just how bullshit all this "AI" is... which does go against the tone of half the slashdot articles it seems.
Neural Net being trained to help boy find lost dog
Is AI going to replace your local barista?
Google testing AI which will push the bounds of human achievement
Oddly enough, it does suggest that AI is "good" at humor, at least in the field of comedy with which both mad libs and screaming homeless folk practice.
Yeah, McFly, like you didn't see the past 20 years of AI headlines?! Let me guess, you just took a shortcut here from the past, and missed it?
And are lots of people suing each other, or are the same few people suing each other over and over again? Maybe the bot can tell us what is really going on.
Here's something else that's moderately interesting. The Venn diagram of people who will never contribute anything to the world, and people who describe things as "meh" on the internet, is just a circle.
Out of every 10 new ideas I have, at least 1 will be "wha?", 6 will be "meh", 2 will be "well, maybe if you combine it with something else", and 1 will be "ok, that might work." The best thing you can do to improve the quality of your work is to recognize when that work sucks and to speak the truth about it.
Here's something else that's moderately interesting. The Venn diagram of people who will never contribute anything to the world, and people who describe things as "meh" on the internet, is just a circle.
I thought the AI-based Magic The Gathering card generator was pretty neat; by the end it was reasonably consistent at generating proper cards. I once wrote a program that would automatically select images to go with them (googling keywords of relevance from the generated text, with optional colour filters and trying to find artwork rather than photos, and progressively decreasing how stringent its search terms were until it found a match), so it would be possible to print out no-human-involved decks from sc
I'm always curious to see what the computer generates - the language seems to flow well but the meaning is so bizarre. Good for a laugh or maybe even generate ideas.
Here are some more: http://lewisandquark.tumblr.co... [tumblr.com]
This is fun, I guess. I've seen other posts on this blog as well. It's all moderately interesting, but with the best ones filtered to the top by a human, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?
Seems like wasted research dollars, to me.
What makes the ones that are actually amusing funny is that they're non sequiturs. The ones that aren't funny - which is to say "most of them" - are simply nonsensical.
It's unclear whether that was the goal of the effort or not, but the key capture here is that none of these projected headlines is in any way truly informative in a real-world, factual context. What I think would be far more interesting (although, admittedly, probably a good deal less amusing) would be to set this
Meh (Score:5, Interesting)
This is fun, I guess. I've seen other posts on this blog as well.
It's all moderately interesting, but with the best ones filtered to the top by a human, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?
Seems like wasted research dollars, to me.
It *IS* fun! Finally... (Score:0)
Slashdot Media can excise the last trappings of their crappy editorbase and the level of gibberish in headlines and article synopsis' will look no different! Be sure to email Slashdot Media's parent company and voice your approval for their elimination! :)
captcha was 'adroit' :)
Re: It *IS* fun! Finally... (Score:0)
The plural of âoesynopsisâ is âoesynopses.â Why the hell would you write âoesynopsisâ with an apostrophe? Are you trying to make it possessive?
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:3)
What are those screwy 'â' things for? Are you trying to be edgy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:0)
What are those screwy 'â' things for? Are you trying to be edgy?
Someone with a 4 digit ID doesn't recognize Slashdot's screwy handling of ascii? I smell sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL if you thought the problem was the handling of ASCII then you should have just given up, seen his 4 digits, and stayed off the lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an insight into the future where many news articles will be written by robots. The fact that it produces some odd output is useful data that we can learn from.
It's also interesting to see how much certain words and ideas crop up. Lots of people suing each other.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an insight into the future where many news articles will be written by robots.
Unless future events will occur by randomly shuffling events of the past to make news, I'm not clear what this experiment demonstrates that's useful.
Re: (Score:2)
1. "Experiment" was the wrong terminology to use, it's nothing but humor.
2. Don't think of it as writing future headlines, think of it more as writing headlines that "could have occurred" in such and such decade. Like, "here's a joke about headlines on Slashdot in the 90s." You couldn't base a whole tv show on it, of course -- "That Slashdot 90s Show", anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
It did go to show just how bullshit all this "AI" is... which does go against the tone of half the slashdot articles it seems.
Oddly enough, it does suggest that AI is "good" at humor, at least in the field of comedy with which both mad libs and screaming homeless folk practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, McFly, like you didn't see the past 20 years of AI headlines?! Let me guess, you just took a shortcut here from the past, and missed it?
And are lots of people suing each other, or are the same few people suing each other over and over again? Maybe the bot can tell us what is really going on.
Re: Meh (Score:5, Funny)
Here's something else that's moderately interesting. The Venn diagram of people who will never contribute anything to the world, and people who describe things as "meh" on the internet, is just a circle.
Re: (Score:3)
Out of every 10 new ideas I have, at least 1 will be "wha?", 6 will be "meh", 2 will be "well, maybe if you combine it with something else", and 1 will be "ok, that might work." The best thing you can do to improve the quality of your work is to recognize when that work sucks and to speak the truth about it.
Re: (Score:0)
Here's something else that's moderately interesting. The Venn diagram of people who will never contribute anything to the world, and people who describe things as "meh" on the internet, is just a circle.
Sounds vacuous - meh.
Re: (Score:2)
You must usually hang out at Hackaday.
Re: (Score:0)
Re: Meh (Score:0)
Says the man who will never contribute anything to the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there was the guy who contributed the word "meh" to the world, so the circles aren't quite identical.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the AI-based Magic The Gathering card generator was pretty neat; by the end it was reasonably consistent at generating proper cards. I once wrote a program that would automatically select images to go with them (googling keywords of relevance from the generated text, with optional colour filters and trying to find artwork rather than photos, and progressively decreasing how stringent its search terms were until it found a match), so it would be possible to print out no-human-involved decks from sc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
enigma32 observed:
This is fun, I guess. I've seen other posts on this blog as well. It's all moderately interesting, but with the best ones filtered to the top by a human, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?
Seems like wasted research dollars, to me.
What makes the ones that are actually amusing funny is that they're non sequiturs. The ones that aren't funny - which is to say "most of them" - are simply nonsensical.
It's unclear whether that was the goal of the effort or not, but the key capture here is that none of these projected headlines is in any way truly informative in a real-world, factual context. What I think would be far more interesting (although, admittedly, probably a good deal less amusing) would be to set this
Re: (Score:0)
I think think they need to apply a markov chain to this to make the headlines more realistic.