Automated content generation is growing.
Written content generated from algorithms, determined by big data software or apps, is on the rise.
Foundational journalistic formulae of structuring written content backed by a defined method lends itself, almost endearingly, to being a victim of automated content.
Take this quiz: can you tell the difference?
The New York Times published this quiz back in March 2015 - Did a computer or human write this?
This author took the quiz and answered purely on the rhythm and tone of each piece. I got 100%. I could definitely pick the computer generated content versus human, without thinking too deeply about each piece.
As a lover of words, communication and language, the computer generated content radiated a subtle, but forced symmetry, despite attempts at creative pieces. I could almost see the code behind the prose. Naturally this transparency will change and improve as big data evolves.
Computer generated content needs creative input.
From a futuristic view, unless a reader is truly passionate about language and its vulnerability to serendipity, and all its beautiful idiosyncrasies (sadly, a minority), it won't matter if articles are computer generated for informational purposes. If a reader is seeking informational or factual details, they'll be able to source them readily, and in a very timely way.
Yet there will always be a call for true craftspeople. Algorithms can only feed off existing content. To truly capture the heart and minds of an audience, word artisans publishing regularly will continue to be in demand.
Continuing to produce engaging content will require algorithms having access to fresh sources of innovative prose to draw from and keep people excited about what they're reading.
This author is very excited about the future!