The concept seems pretty solid, but reading the output I feel like this is bordering on unethical. Maybe this is just a bad example, but it seems you’ve gone past programmatically giving people information, and into giving the impression you’re actually endorsing things. Unless you actually add metadata to the artist saying you love them, or rate the venue to indicate it’s good for live music, you’ve got no way of going beyond “Van Halen, a local rock band, are playing at American Brewpub at 7pm Thursday. You can drink local IPA while watching them, and buy tickets here.”
This is a very simplified example written by human hands just for this post (not machine written). The database is immense and has far more fields than you might imagine. It takes into account how many clicks content with Van Halen has had in the past and how many clicks content with American Brewpub has had etc to figure out how likely this article is to resonate with our audience, plus how many human-written articles have been published about these subjects and sentiment analysis to figure out if our articles were positive or neutral (we don't write negative articles, if we don't like a business/event we just don't talk about it), which impacts how the machine-generated article is phrased or even if it gets written at all.
We have about 90 events on our calendar per city in any given month, and this AI writes about three or four articles per city per week even though it's running constantly. It's pretty selective and very rarely writes something that our two human writers wouldn't have mentioned otherwise. Our personal preferences and those of our audience are certainly taken into account.
