Jim Marusak Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3023335/Weather-reports-soon-read-ROBOTS-Computers-learn-mimic-humans-compiling-forecasts.html I saw this article yesterday or the day before from the Daily Mail, and it did make me wonder.... how long until such technology could realistically replace humans, as in the actual feel of someone behind the camera, not just some Max Headroom like weathercaster? what happens if the models used by such a system were either missing, data-corrupted, or way off, for whatever reason, would a station still be able to broadcast that and look credible? would people really accept this alternative to a human reading the forecast, like is the case on NOAA wx radio attm? if the brits were able to somehow make this work, would one of the media conglomerates actually try this in the US, say in a smaller market (say 150 or smaller) to see if it would fly with the rest of the American public, in an effort to cut the cost of human capital? if this were to actually be accepted by the majority of the public, would the met programs across the country be sustainable at all (esp ones like Mississippi St)? or would they finally have to close up shop as more mets become cannon fodder? the lines are open folks.... just keep it civil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.