Slashdot Mirror


Replacement of Writers Leads Gartner's Predictions (computerworld.com)

dcblogs writes: Gartner's near-future predictions include: Writers will be replaced. By 2018, 20% of all business content, one in five of the documents you read, will be authored by a machine. By 2018, 2 million employees will be required to wear health and fitness tracking devices as a condition of employment. This may seem Orwellian, but certain jobs require people to be fit, such as public safety workers. By 2020, smart agents will facilitate 40% of mobile interactions. This is based on the belief that the world is moving to a post-app era, where assistants such as Apple's Siri act as a type of universal interface.

22 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Flying cars. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Funny

    And let's not forget the flying cars.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Flying cars. by KGIII · · Score: 2

      I don't think Gartner is usually correct. It may be my search terms but I've not been able to find out how often their predictions actually come true or anything like that. I think that might actually make an interesting study. It doesn't seem like it would be all that difficult to compile the data though I'm not sure how well the companies would go along with this and to what extent they'd be helpful.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. Spam 2.0 by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    one in five of the documents you read, will be authored by a machine.

    If you count spam, that's already true. Bots mutate and reshuffle the words to get past spam filters.

  3. I wish these articles would just stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Things will progress at roughly the rate they've been progressing. In 3 years, things will look basically the same. Some of these things may start to come true, or be in trial stages, mostly though it's nonsense.

    Robobosses will not be a thing. Management as a discipline is not strongly defined. First you have to get executives to widely agree that there is a set method to manage appropriately, at which point you would be able to legitimately evaluate managers. If you've noticed we're nowhere near that happening, you'll realize it won't be automated within 3 years.

    Smart agents show few signs of catching on. Surveys everywhere show Siri is barely being used and even those who use it give up on it frequently.

    What they refer to as "smart machines" sound like little more than the automation of metric gathering.

    I'm tired of reading these stories. Where's the flying cars? Personal space travel for all?

    Most of the "amazing" technology we've gotten recently is just a refinement of things we've been working on for 30-40 years. Internet of things? Electric cars? Smart decision systems? It's all been around for decades.

    Captcha: Marketed

  4. Re:Save Your Time by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    It's better if you read it to this tune:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  5. And we believe Gartner? Why? by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do Gartner projections turn out to be accurate? How accurate? How often?

  6. Writers won't be replaced by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Informative

    The kind of document Gartner's talking about isn't the kind that's written, it's the kind that's transcribed from facts with some formatting applied. As the article says, it's sports scores and budget reports and such. It's the kind of stuff I call "boilerplate" and write scripts to handle, eg. to take a small input file with the information defining a C++ class ("This is the class name, these are the data members and their types.") and spit out a properly-formatted C++ class definition complete with all the constructors, assignment operator and standard methods needed (which is oftentimes 2 orders of magnitude bigger than the input file). Actual creative writing, the kind that requires coming up with the information to put into the document, is in no danger of being replaced any time soon.

  7. Flawless AI in 5 years? Yeah, right... by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Flawless AI in 5 years to drive those "intelligent" agents?

    Yeah, right.

    They've been predicting "hard" AI within 20 years for about 35 years now...

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Flawless AI in 5 years? Yeah, right... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's possible - you don't really need to make the AI any smarter if you can just make the "consumers" dumber instead.

      That's funny. And it's actually one of TFA's predictions:

      By 2018, 50% of the fastest-growing companies will have fewer smart employees than instances of smart machines. These machines are easy to replicate and there will be a lot more of them.

      One way to read this is that the machines will be easier to replicate. Another way to read this prediction is that companies will just stop paying a premium to hire smart people and just listen to dumb "smart" machines instead, while hiring a bunch of mindless worker drones. Actually, that's what TFA goes on to imply:

      Smart systems, for example, will be analyzing how a factory is being run, or deciding whether people are completing a task at an appropriate speed.

      So in other words, all we're left with is a bunch of mindless "factory" workers "completing a task" within an allotted time, and their mechanical overloads. I guess we're going to replace most mid-level management with "smart machines" to make ridiculous decisions about efficiency on the basis of bad metrics? I suppose it can't be much worse than current management practice at many companies.

  8. Auto generated news? by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 2

    Will this apply to /. summaries (sometimes you wonder here) and news articles in general? If so, I for one welcome our robot overlords and do not believe for a second the claims of bias just because of that one article suggesting all humans are oxygen-breathing weaklings that should be mined for material serving the needs of robots.

  9. Typing != writing by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    Gartner's near-future predictions include: Writers will be replaced. By 2018, 20% of all business content

    So a) whose going to "write" the other 80% of business content, if not "writers"? and b) people who create business documents are not "writers."

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  10. Re:Save Your Time by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the article weren't so badly written, poorly organized and incoherent, I'd suspect it to be the product of a machine -- albeit one hampered by a bad software patch. Anyway, if you replace 2020 with 2040 or 2050, some parts might have some merit. It may provide a bit of insight into the nature of the run_before_you_can_walk "thinking" that will likely precede Silicon Valley's next crash.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  11. Bollocks by bytesex · · Score: 2

    When 1) complex computer programs become mathematically provable, and 2) computer languages become complex enough to convey proper meaning, then writing becomes obsolete (because documentation will just be a question of running the program through the checker). And not before, in my neck of the woods. Oh, and the solving of both issues is a lot further away than 2020 by any estimate.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  12. Re:How Can We Tell? by edittard · · Score: 2

    I think this comment by one "Infostack" is the winner (no way to link directly to it; just 'like' and 'share'):

    The problem with today's internet model is that it lacks settlement exchanges that clear supply and demand both north-south and east-west ex ante.

    Robotics/AI is a component category that cuts across the four major market forces which are digitizing everything as we know it, namely: 4K content on demand, 2-way HD collaboration, mobility first, and internet of things. When referencing Robotics/AI, people tend to mistakenly focus on the latter "all things to all people" market exclusively.

    Seriously, this guy needs to have his paradigm shifted with a slap round the head followed by a synergistic kick in the nuts.

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  13. Re:And we believe Gartner? Why? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a bit like horoscope for management. More some kind of entertainment rather than something you should based your decisions on, and you may consider it amusing should once in a blue moon some prediction actually hit the spot.

    Which will instantly be celebrated and danced around by those who really, really want to believe in the crystal ball readings and use it as proof that the system works.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Re:Leit's replace Gartner now by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Well, I guess their report will be one of the machine generated documents in 3 years...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. Re:And we believe Gartner? Why? by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are so hilariously wrong so often you could build a successful career out of assuming they will be wrong about everything. A selection of their idiocies:

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  16. Re:And we believe Gartner? Why? by Cornwallis · · Score: 2

    I haven't listened to Garnter since they announced 20 years ago it cost $30k/year to support a desktop!

  17. Really? by ledow · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because voice recognition - just for starters - hasn't come on much in the last twenty years.

    Last time I used Siri (which was only a few months ago), I asked it a simple question and it just sat there baffled. I spent twenty minutes trying all kinds of simplification, better pronunciations, and rewording but still it wasn't able to fathom anything useful from it. No, I don't have a strong accent (but what the fuck should that matter anyway?) and no I wasn't in a room full of noise (but - again - are we going to have to go outside and find a quiet spot to get these things to work in the future).

    Apart from where there are obvious detectable keywords that they can make up the rest of the query around, these things are SHIT, and always have been.

    I work in schools, I've dealt with a number of teachers and "learning support specialists" who hear that there is a voice recognition software, who then insist we need to use it for those children unable to write properly, and then trial it and discover just how useless it is - especially if the child already has even the most minor of communications problems too - and then realise what a waste of time it is.

    One teacher I know wanted to write all their school reports using voice recognition because they were sold how wonderful it was by some guy paid to train them. Yeah, in a silent hall, using his exact phrasing, it seemed to work. Ten times slower than typing, but the demo was nice. However, you've not saved time or effort, you still have to double-check everything before it goes out (and inevitably on a computer because the devices aren't even close to being able to be controlled by voice - "Oh, no, change that word elephant to giraffe, please") and the accuracy in any real-world environment or using anything other than very basic phrasing SUCKED. I laughed when they told me that's how they wanted to write their reports - hundreds of them each per member of staff within a one-week window. The technology is honestly that bad.

    And the rest is just bollocks of the highest order.

    1. Re:Really? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      Because voice recognition - just for starters - hasn't come on much in the last twenty years.

      Huh? Did you actually use voice recognition 20 years ago?

      I still remember the first time I tried a voice recognition program -- sometime around 1990. It had a VERY limited vocabulary. It required hours and hours of training even to recognize that for a particular speaker. Additional words could be trained, but it was annoying... and the thing just didn't work, despite the claims that it would make your life so much easier. That was 25 years ago.

      I remember 10 years ago when I got a convertible ultraportable computer, which had whatever tablet version of Windows was around at that time. It claimed that the voice recognition was so much better. I tried it -- and although it required training to get better accuracy, the range of vocabulary was adequate. But it still made annoying errors all over the place.

      I remember about 5 years ago when a friend suggested I try out the current version of Dragon, since he said he was finally making use of it for short emails and whatever. (He had an infant at the time, and it was convenient for times when he was busy doing other things and typing was inconvenient.) I tried it -- and it was a huge improvement over even 5 years before. Still had some errors, but a LOT better, even without training.

      Then I bought a Nexus tablet last year. I saw Google's advertisement about its voice recognition. I tried it and dictated a couple paragraphs of text FLAWLESSLY -- with no training, even got a number of proper names and such correct.

      I don't use Siri very often, so I don't know what she knows. But Google's voice recognition is pretty astounding compared to where things were 10 years ago, and simply magical compared to 20 years ago.

      However, you've not saved time or effort, you still have to double-check everything before it goes out (and inevitably on a computer because the devices aren't even close to being able to be controlled by voice - "Oh, no, change that word elephant to giraffe, please") and the accuracy in any real-world environment or using anything other than very basic phrasing SUCKED.

      Yes -- that's the reason I still haven't started using it myself regularly. You actually have to LEARN to dictate well -- it requires new speech habits (and dedicated speech recognition software does have adequate control mechanisms for correction etc., once you get used to it), and typing works so well for me that I don't have a strong motivation to learn that skill yet.

      I agree with you that using speech recognition for an entire report seems stupid, unless you had a kid with a disability or something. There's a certain kind of reflective thought and interactivity that goes into longer sections of writing which I have found is just harder to do while dictating. But for short messages or emails or memos or whatever? People have been doing that for on tape for secretaries for many decades... and voice recognition is now up to the task. (If you type slowly, it could definitely be faster to dictate and make a few corrections nowadays.)

  18. When Gartner predicts do the opposite by Gim+Tom · · Score: 2

    For over 20 years I would carefully study the prognostications that Gartner made and then try my best to convince the suits to do the opposite. My biggest failure in doing so was when my organization went completely Token-Ring and OS2. My best assignment ever came only a few years latter when I was given the task to rip it all out and replace it with Ethernet and a mix of Linux and Windows servers.

  19. Re:And we believe Gartner? Why? by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In 1990 or thereabouts Gartner predicted that OS/2 would become the dominant operating system within about three or four years. It wasn't a throwaway statement, it was a detailed report with a chart and table showing the exact percentages and numbers of installations for MS-DOS, Windows, Mac, UNIX, and OS/2. Windows was going to fade very quickly.

    But that's the way it is with predictions. People will pay for them and just don't seem to care about the accuracy of past predictions.