Sci+Tech
March 31, 2014 www.mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily
35
One byte closer to an automated future Automated content software and the future of journalism Fernanda Pérez Gay Juárez Sci+Tech Writer
I
magine the newsroom of the future – filled with computers taking in data and spitting out news articles; a world where human journalists have become obsolete. Is this mere imagination, or are journalists getting closer to being replaced by machines? There are some moments in modern life that seem, upon reflection, more like science fiction than reality. That was the case when I found myself on the Narrative Science webpage, where I came across a blog post titled “Human Insight at Machine Scale.” This led me to a short video describing what Narrative Science was about. In it, the narrator says, “Our patented artificial intelligence engine automatically transforms structured data into written narratives indistinguishable from those written by humans.” The video explained that Quill – the recently-developed software – could turn numbers, symbols, charts, and graphs into human language (in this case, English) that would be indistinguishable from that of a human’s. Narrative Science is not the only company working on this type of product. Automated Insights, a company that works with news agencies such as Bloomberg and USA Today, promotes a similar product that uses
artificial intelligence (AI) to scan large data sets and write automated stories. “Except we [produce stories] in realtime and at a scale of millions,” they advertise on their homepage. This type of “automated content” produced by AI or software is now being used to produce what’s called “algorithmic news” – short articles written based on a series of algorithms that puts information together in the form of a story. Some media outlets are already using these technologies. For example, the Los Angeles Times has an automated content generator capable of reporting news of an earthquake minutes after it occurs. Christer Clerwall, a professor at Karlstad University in Sweden, conducted a study earlier this year to compare people’s assessment of news written by a journalist and a machine. The ratings given by the 46 subjects came incredibly close. Although people seemed to find most automatedcontent articles to be “descriptive and boring,” people had difficulty distinguishing the origin of the article (man or machine). Almost no differences were found on the various measures, but articles written by journalists were judged as slightly more coherent and pleasant to read. Though these results may draw a bleak picture for journalists, there are still limitations to the technology. The current algorithms are unable
Jasmine Wang | The McGill Daily to produce opinionated or insightful pieces. Creativity is an intrinsically human trait that allows us to think outside the box to develop new ideas. Any algorithm that can currently be implemented in a machine will follow a strict path, and cannot yet challenge the flexibility the human mind can offer. Currently, the automated content produced by software mostly consists of short, organized reports of available datasets. These capabilities may prove very helpful when it comes to finan-
cial reports or sports statistics, which summarize the most relevant points from a data bank. However, there is a gap between an easy-to-understand report and an article or dissertation on a topic capable of giving us different perspectives, new ideas, or questions about its content. Journalism is more than the mere act of producing simple reports of data or facts. Rather, it is a creative exercise that questions ideas, exposes unique points of view, and generates new approaches to subjects that may awaken
the reader’s interest. Without creativity and comprehensive understanding, both exclusive of human beings and non-existent in machines, there can be no new venues of interpretation. Great ideas, deep analysis, and random moments of inspiration when a new point of view arises cannot be predicted, orchestrated, or programmed. Creativity is something that automated-software will not be able to easily mimic. As technology develops, traits once thought to be uniquely human will continue to be challenged.
To vaccinate or not? How public misinterpretation of science is harmful to society Karine Makhijani Sci+Tech Writer
T
he question of whether or not to vaccinate has recently been a contentious subject in the realm of popular science. In the realm of public discourse, certain individuals have been arguing the necessity of vaccinations for children. A recent measles outbreak in the Chilliwack community in British Columbia brings this issue to the forefront of societal discourse. There were two confirmed cases at a school in Chilliwack, along with over 100 suspected cases in the surrounding community over the past year, endangering populations extending to all areas of Fraser Valley East region. This outbreak has been attributed to a low level of immunization in public schools. In an interview with the Vancouver Sun, Victoria Lee, a spokeswoman for the Fraser Health Authority, stated that, “In the East Fraser
region we have immunization rates of 60 to 70 per cent, but in some of the schools we are examining, the immunization rates are as low as 0 per cent.” The low levels of immunization have been associated with the ideological beliefs of the ultra-orthodox Protestant community. Pastors in this community have expressed their convictions that vaccines are an attempt to pervade the will of God. The province has made arrangements for the distribution of the measles vaccine to general practitioners and pharmacies in the region as well as set up specialized clinics around the vulnerable regions. The Public Health Agency of Canada declared Canada free of endemic measles as of 1998, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently recommends vaccination against 16 vaccine-preventable diseases for children. The Chilliwack outbreak, similar to other outbreaks since 1998, has been attributed to the
importation of the virus from other endemic regions, which was then aggravated by the extremely low levels of immunization within the community. Most infectious diseases need 85 per cent of the population to be vaccinated to achieve “herd immunity,” which is the state of immunity where a percentage of the population has been immunized to safeguard those who do not have immunity against the infection. For example, malaria is highly contagious and requires 90 per cent of the population to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Malaria is an airborne disease that can cause pneumonia, brain damage, deafness, blindness, serious complications for pregnant women, and even death. The best prevention is two doses of the vaccine, which has been freely available to all Canadians born after 1957. Aside from religious reasons, the recent trend against vaccines stems from the belief that vaccinating chil-
dren results in more health concerns later in life. This trend stems from a discredited, but much-publicized study by Andrew Wakefield in a 1998 issue of the Lancet, which claimed to find a correlation between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism in children. In his article, Wakefield called vaccination a “moral issue,” facilitating a plunge in vaccination rates in the UK – and resulting in a resurgence of endemic measles. Wakefield’s position was further endorsed by various public figures and celebrities, with the most recent being Jenny McCarthy. McCarthy’s widespread campaign began in 2007, when she announced that her son’s autism was a result of vaccinations. She published a book about her own experience dealing with her son’s autism, Louder Than Words, A Mother’s Journey in Healing Autism, and participated in fundraisers, online chats, and other activities for nonprofit organizations to help affected
families with autism spectrum disorders. Yet her claim that the MMR vaccine was the cause of her son’s autism was rejected by medical practitioners and researchers, and has no basis in scientific evidence. No scientist has been able to replicate Wakefield’s findings. It was later discovered that he was paid to publish certain results of his study, and was subsequently charged with “dishonesty and irresponsibility” in conducting his research by the General Medical Council. Despite his being discredited, Wakefield’s study introduced the idea of vaccination as being a “moral issue” into society. The scientific community is responsible for providing society with innovations that will further progress knowledge and contribute to the well-being of the public. Conversely, it is the duty of the socially-responsible citizen to critically analyze publicized beliefs and to be educated on an issue before taking a stance.