Could Artifical Intelligent Jocks Take Over Human Personalities?

[DominiqueRadio]

Wrote a blog on this.... it is pretty cool. Read it here.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/domini...lligence-replace-the-human-radio-personality/

I posted the link because the article has video in it. Since we cannot post video on radio-info, I decided against repasting it here. Just click the link. oh and don't forget to comment.

Thanks for reading!

 

[fredcantu]

Computers only respond to input. I can see a computer reading what it's told and giving canned responses. But it will never come up with anything original. And isn't that what we want from a radio personality.

 

[DominiqueRadio]

Actually, the software can learn. While you may be correct that the responses are canned knowledge, think of the huge amount of breaks that can be written and to be said on air at random. This is no different from a liner jock.

 

[Anonymouse]

I don't listen to Mix 96 in SA because of that. I was listening to both them and 96.7 KISS from Austin the other night... Same songs with the same national DJ!

I hate it when stations have national DJs that suck..

 

[fredcantu]

think of the huge amount of breaks that can be written and to be said on air at random.

A jock connects with a listener when the listeners finds themselves thinking, "That was the perfect thing to say." Using random methods to select responses will more likely have the listener thinking, "What was that about?"

 

[anthonydt06]

think of the huge amount of breaks that can be written and to be said on air at random.

A jock connects with a listener when the listeners finds themselves thinking, "That was the perfect thing to say." Using random methods to select responses will more likely have the listener thinking, "What was that about?"

I agree that nothing beats a live jock on air. Even a nationally syndicated radio show... as long as it's live (or maybe even recorded) and not randomly voice-tracked. The Premium Choice deal is just as impersonal and awkward as a robotic DJ.

 

[DominiqueRadio]

A jock connects with a listener when the listeners finds themselves thinking, "That was the perfect thing to say." Using random methods to select responses will more likely have the listener thinking, "What was that about?"

I completely disagree Fred. I could be wrong here but I seriously doubt there has ever been a listener ever in the history of radio that someone who is not in radio told themselves "That was the perfect thing to say."

-My 2 cents-

 

[DominiqueRadio]

I agree that nothing beats a live jock on air. Even a nationally syndicated radio show... as long as it's live (or maybe even recorded) and not randomly voice-tracked. The Premium Choice deal is just as impersonal and awkward as a robotic DJ.

Yep, just cause they use people on the air means nothing. It is still very impersonal.

 

[landtuna]

There are more than a couple misconceptions in this thread related to what computers can do and can't do (yet).

First, computers are just in the very early stages of mimicking human emotions and voice inflection. Most of it today is simply pre-recorded and not as a response to stimuli as with humans.

Second, there is no computer on Earth that can recognize sarcasm - an element frequently used in TV and radio broadcasting as well as in normal human conversation.

Third, computers can "learn" only to the extent that dogs and cats "learn". Give them food when they come and they will associate food with your command - but that is only the basic element of "learning". Everything else has to be "pre-learned" and stored in memory somewhere and a link provided to the computer to go get it when asked. This is the human equivalent of an infant and is not much more sophisticated than having bits recorded on tape and playing them when appropriate (as old jocks used to do with SFX).

What computers can do, possibly better than humans, is direct pre-ordained tasks without getting sick, needing potty breaks or asking for a raise. But in this capacity the computer is not much more than any other machine except perhaps in the complexity of its tasks and the ability to do more than one thing at a time (well, not really, but it does seem so because of the speed).

No doubt one day a computer will be built with something approaching the mental capacity of a human adult but in all probability it won't be in any of our lifetimes.

 

[DominiqueRadio]

Nice response "landtuna"

I agree with you on some of what you said. However I assure you if I loaded her up with music news relevant to the stations music format, Denise could pull off an airshift TODAY. She could easily be turned into a liner jock. It would take a little configuration to get her to answer calls but i feel EVENTUALLY she could pull it off.

 

[fredcantu]

I could be wrong here but I seriously doubt there has ever been a listener ever in the history of radio that someone who is not in radio told themselves "That was the perfect thing to say."

You've forgotten what connecting with the listener is all about. The right quip at the right time becomes watercooler talk and maybe even makes the TV news or a blurb in the paper. Been there, done that. You think a computerized announcer can do that? Only their on-air meltdowns get that kind of attention.

 

[DominiqueRadio]

You've forgotten what connecting with the listener is all about. The right quip at the right time becomes watercooler talk and maybe even makes the TV news or a blurb in the paper. Been there, done that. You think a computerized announcer can do that? Only their on-air meltdowns get that kind of attention.

I can certainly see your point of view. However, you are not seeing mine either. While connecting with the listener is always a good thing, not every single break ever made on the air accomplishes that. A liner break talking about an upcoming event or something like that does not connect with the listener. It simply describes that topic at hand. In fact, MOST liner breaks do not involve listener interaction whatsoever. If a quip is what you are looking for, you are right. She is a machine and does not have use for sarcasm. However, just like music news can be inserted into her brain, more personal information could be uploaded as well. She could be loaded with small opinions to give the illusion she is a little more human than she really is. Not all breaks need listener interaction is what I was trying to get at.

Another thing, in your initial response you had said listeners sometimes think to themselves "That was the perfect thing to say." I had already respectfully responded with my disagreement. As apart of the radio industry we sometimes forget what it is like to have zero affiliation with the industry. In reality, 99.9% of people who are NOT in radio can care less. PPM research backs this claim up. When DJ's talk, then change the station. Listeners listen for music, not personalities. As personalities it is easy for us to get confused because we are the opposite.

=)

 

[fredcantu]

If you think listeners only listen for music then you're missing the point of radio. Listening to radio is a social activity. You're gathering with friends and like-minded individuals to listen to music and commentary that the group likes. If all you want is music, you turn on your iPod. If the PPMs show people tuning out when the music ends, maybe it's because we've trained them that when the music stops the loooong commercial break can't be far behind.

 

[dallasboyz]

listeners dont care about music DJs.

just play the damn song.

 

[DominiqueRadio]

If you think listeners only listen for music then you're missing the point of radio. Listening to radio is a social activity. You're gathering with friends and like-minded individuals to listen to music and commentary that the group likes. If all you want is music, you turn on your iPod. If the PPMs show people tuning out when the music ends, maybe it's because we've trained them that when the music stops the loooong commercial break can't be far behind.

Well the way I see it... who is to say how the listener listens? Who are we to tell them? We are not in the business to train listeners. We are in the business to make the radio station revenue. No matter how you slice it, that is the bottom line. You said

If you think listeners only listen for music then you're missing the point of radio.

Well in a music format I can promise you that this is the case. I have never heard of any listener turning on the radio for the commercials. So music IS the only reason why they listen. No amount of training is going to make the average listener want to listen to the jock babble. DallasBoyz was correct when he said "listeners dont care about music DJ's".

 

[landtuna]

listeners dont care about music DJs.

just play the damn song.

Painting all listeners with one broad brush can lead to failing ratings. While certain demos may not appreciate jock talk there are others that do. Having been raised in the "golden age" of Top-40 radio I am one of those who appreciates an appropriate level of conversation to augment the music. While listening to my mp3 player assures hearing only my personal favorites it also assures a more sterile environment and becomes its own monotony.

The secret, as with everything else in broadcasting, is to find the right mix of talk and music for your target demo. Chances are, your listeners are going to be put off much more by long or obnoxious commercial blocks than by what little jock talk takes place today.