4 ms·
I don't see that as a failure. It did produce a sentence that is shorter, grammatical (though "named to head" is a bit weird) and essentially true — calling Goo
by hisham_hm 10y ago
I don't see that as a failure. It did produce a sentence that is shorter, grammatical (though "named to head" is a bit weird) and essentially true — calling Google an "internet company" would make sense in its early days (back when Google would be prefixed by "internet search-engine company").
- spicyj 10y agoMost humans would interpret "novell chief executive named to head internet company" to mean "novell is an internet company and its chief executive just became its head" which is incorrect (and a little nonsensical since the CEO already is in change).
- nl 10y agoThat's pretty interesting. It's taken me 5 readings of that sentence, including once out-loud to get your reading of it. I thought the generated summary was really, really good. But I knew that Novell wasn't considered an internet company, so it wasn't until I made myself ignore that before I could see the other reading.
- spicyj 10y agoOh, that's funny. I was thinking it was. I guess it's a software company but not an internet company.
- Cybiote 10y agoI didn't think it was a failure either until I realized that I was letting future knowledge leak into the past! There is more than one internet company so upon reading that headline, given that it must be a novel event, my question would be: "Which Company?". Now I have to read the article until I find out. The human summary is better because I don't have to ask that question.