4 ms·

I work with NLP and do not plan to try this tool, though, not because of Java, but because I'm not interested in a summarizer right now. Our current production

by maga 10y ago

I work with NLP and do not plan to try this tool, though, not because of Java, but because I'm not interested in a summarizer right now. Our current production back-end doing NLP stuff is written in Java and most third party libraries it uses are also written in Java. It was initially written in Python, but at one point we realized that most libraries we use are in Java and Python is just moving data between them. The choice of these Java libraries wasn't driven by any love towards Java either. By the time they were just a fair bit more advanced both in feature set and performance than their Python counterparts. One example is Stanford Parser and CoreNLP toolkit--up until Parsey McParseface it was the most accurate parser, and CoreNLP toolkit had more features (that interested us) than Python's NLTK.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
thpalmear 10y ago
In the end, language and libs don't matter as much as the actual relevancy of the algorithmic methods. This is where the real innovation and invention occurs, in the ability to mimic human cognition as closely as possible. This is also why side-by-side comparisons are the ultimate litmus and why there is now a separation happening between companies that regurgitate voyeuristic ideas (geocities, friendster, myspace, facebook-aol, snapchat, twitter-majordomo) verses companies that truly invent and innovate hard-to-duplicate initial algorithmic solutions (Google, SENS, Buck Inst., Human Longevity, SpaceX). It's like fake AI vs a path toward some semblance of real AI.