Is technology taking over our prospective job market?

This question, though perhaps rhetorical, is also very real.

Narrative Science, a startup company based in Evanston, Ill., may be altering the future of reporters — student or otherwise — who dream of being the next Big Thing in journalism (or at the very least, someone worthy of a byline).

Narrative Science has created a program that according to the Times can “write like a journalist.” Previous programs have tried and failed at developing this type of software, for the finished product continued to read mechanical and formulaic.

But now, the program doesn’t just take in data and spit it out, it can analyze a game-box for a college football game and make inferences about the sequence of events using generated language at the level of a known “wordsmith.”

For example, after examining a game in which the Illini were down by 10 points at halftime, the program would understand that if they rallied to win in overtime, it would be called a “come from behind victory.” The program is already in use by many media companies across the U.S. — The Big Ten Network included.

Am I shaken by this news? No. Shaken doesn’t begin to cover it — I am petrified here, people.

When my second grade teacher, Mrs. Flemming, asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up, I responded: Mia Hamm. Since then, reality has set in. I know the only World Cup I’ll be playing in is a pickup game on the turf fields over by the six pack.

With this realization, my list of potential grown-up jobs has matured. I’ve narrowed the list down to a mash-up between writer/journalist. Think Judy Blume meets Diane Sawyer. But what if I’m not ready to give up on Diane (clearly, I’m not ready to be realistic either)?

Fortunately, Narrative Science’s program as of now is only fit to model after sports columns — or more aptly, stories that are based on numbers. Presently, my job here may be safe, but it could only be a matter of time. As apocalyptic as it sounds, the world of journalism is changing, and a lot of us may not be around after the revolution.

The way I see it, Narrative Science’s fear factor is two-fold, and that’s enough. For one, it’s cost-effective. At $10 per 500 words, the comparison between reporter and robot is rendered virtually non-existent (in terms of professional journalism). It’s hard to compete with something so cheap, and the monetary benefit is only one half of the equation.

The other is, it’s fast. In under 60 seconds fast. The program basically deletes the very concept of a deadline — something a human simply can’t compete with. Stories are produced by design, similar to an assembly line. By plugging in the statistics, the program can write a sports summary as well as an ESPN analyst all in less than a minute. The word choice won’t be exactly the same, but the reader will know the outcome of the game just as well as if he was there.

But what the Narrative Science article won’t have is observation. It doesn’t have eyes, or a nose, or the ability to register temperature. It can’t hear the crowd cheering or crying. Call me sentimental, but the robot doesn’t have a heart, and in my book it can’t win if it can’t beat you.

Lame pun intended, we have to ask ourselves, could an artificial intelligence program come up with something so corny?

I rest my case.

_Emily is a junior in LAS._