Skip to main content

Can Computers write Science Books? - Brian Clegg

The German academic publisher Springer has for some time been using automated editing software (with mixed results) - but recently has brought out a whole book written by a piece of AI software called Beta Writer. The book, Lithium-Ion Batteries: a machine generated summary of current research, can be downloaded free of charge as a PDF. But is this a serious challenge for science writers?

 It's certainly interesting. If I'm honest, this is hardly a book at all - it's more the output of an automated abstract generator pulled together in book form, where frankly this information would be far better just as a web page. However, there's no doubt that there is some interesting work going on here, particularly in the introduction and conclusion sections of the 'book'.

 The whole thing starts with a (human written) preface explaining the technology - by far the most readable part of the text. We then get four 'chapters' of machine-generated content, which each have the format introduction/ set of abstracts / conclusion. Obviously it's the introduction and conclusion that provide the most interest.

 I'll focus on the first introduction, though the same criticisms apply throughout. The first test of a piece of scientific writing meant to be readable is to take a step back and get an overview of a chunk of text - does it look like English or is it dominated by acronyms and numbers? A chunk out of the first page shows that this is very dense technical text, extremely low on readability:

The other two significant indicators of readability are whether the text is a collection of fact statements or is written using connectives and summary to give flow, and whether or not overall there is a structure that takes the reader by the hand and leads them through a communication process. On both tests, the book falls down in a big way. Pretty well every sentence is a standalone fact statement that could be a bullet point: there is no flow whatsoever. And although some attempt has been made to group these statements effectively, there is no sense of a thought-through structure. In the interminable-seeming introductions - the first one runs to 22 dense pages - there is no sense that we are going anywhere, just that we are experiencing randomly thrown together bits of data.

Inevitably, an automated process will produce some sentences that don't quite work, so one essential here is to see whether these have been captured and fixed. A reasonably high percentage of the content does make grammatical sense, but there are regular hiccups - for example we get: 

  • 'That sort of research's principal aim...' - it should be 'principle' not 'principal'. 
  • 'Materials, a number of metal oxides with high theoretical capacity have aroused more and more attention including...' - that 'Materials,' start makes no sense.
  • 'Through Tang and others, mesoporous nanosheet is synthesized...' - sounds painful.
  • 'It is still maintained the huge capacity of 611 mAg-1... when utilized as an anode.' - doesn't make any sense.
  • 'Apart from, few-layer nanosheets enhance a fast insertion...' - apart from what?
  • And so on for many, many more examples.

Going on comments I've had from some Springer authors, the level of uncaught or automatic-editing-generated errors is fairly high in their human-authored publications - these books tend not to be heavily edited - but because they are starting with far more readable text, this is less of an issue.

 So, should science writers be worried? Obviously, as a professional writer myself I'm biassed, but I would say 'No' - at least, not yet. The text in the introductions and conclusions is nowhere near the readability of a decent technical science book, let alone the far higher writing quality required for a good popular science book. And the outcome also emphasises that even if, long-term, automated writing becomes more common, it is always likely to need a look over by a human editor to avoid errors creeping in. However, this is a fascinating experiment and Springer should be congratulated for getting this far.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more