3 ms·

If humans can’t identify sarcasm, why would you expect AI to? It’s like expecting AI to read handwriting, when people can’t even do that 100% of the time.

brisance 9y ago
People didn’t expect to be humbled by a machine at the game of Go either. Yet here we are.
- sidlls 9y ago
  Apples and oranges comparison. Go is much closer to chess than it is to recognizing sarcasm.
  - brisance 9y ago
    It may appear to you to be the case, but DeepBlue used a tree search algorithm. AlphaGo was an ensemble method that was based on neural networks, just like how the researchers used to detect sarcasm (sequence to vector). Read the article!
    - fyi1183 9y ago
      AlphaGo also uses a tree search algorithm. Every tree search algorithm needs a guiding heuristic, and that's what AlphaGo replaces with a neural network. So both DeepBlue and AlphaGo are fairly described as being based on tree search.
  - umanwizard 9y ago
    I’m not convinced. Good computer chess play is based on a deterministic tree walking algorithm, something that’s been clearly in computers’ wheelhouse since forever. Good computer go play is based on neural pattern recognition, which is also (probably) what human sarcasm detection is based on.
    - Declanomous 9y ago
      On the other hand, go operates in a much more finite universe than conversation does. You have 2 pieces, and a number of places to put them. You have a goal. Conversation doesn't work like that, and takes a vast amount of information to understand whether someone is being sarcastic.
      - brisance 9y ago
        So you’re saying that the people cited in the article accomplished something more significant than the AlphaGo team…?
        TuringTest 9y ago
        Probably not, because the approach taken in the paper is identifying a small set of patterns that are present in sarcasm, not fully understanding the meaning and context of why the sentence is sarcastic. It's a useful tool with pragmatic applications in online discourse analysis, but not a solved problem.
        Declanomous 9y ago
        I'm just saying it's easier to make progress when your universe is easier to define.
pvdebbe 9y ago
If humans can’t do simple math, why would you expect computers to? It’s like expecting AI to sum up 1000 integers without errors, when people can’t even do that 100% of the time.
- goatlover 9y ago
  There are some things easier for a computer to do, like lots of simple math, given that the computer can accurately store the result of each calculation, whereas people have difficulty doing so for 1000 integers. And there are some things that are relatively easy for humans to do, like communicate with natural language. Sarcasm falls into the later category. This is because human understanding is heavily social and conceptual.

brisance 9y ago

People didn’t expect to be humbled by a machine at the game of Go either. Yet here we are.

sidlls 9y ago
Apples and oranges comparison. Go is much closer to chess than it is to recognizing sarcasm.
- brisance 9y ago
  It may appear to you to be the case, but DeepBlue used a tree search algorithm. AlphaGo was an ensemble method that was based on neural networks, just like how the researchers used to detect sarcasm (sequence to vector). Read the article!
  - fyi1183 9y ago
    AlphaGo also uses a tree search algorithm. Every tree search algorithm needs a guiding heuristic, and that's what AlphaGo replaces with a neural network. So both DeepBlue and AlphaGo are fairly described as being based on tree search.
- umanwizard 9y ago
  I’m not convinced. Good computer chess play is based on a deterministic tree walking algorithm, something that’s been clearly in computers’ wheelhouse since forever. Good computer go play is based on neural pattern recognition, which is also (probably) what human sarcasm detection is based on.
  - Declanomous 9y ago
    On the other hand, go operates in a much more finite universe than conversation does. You have 2 pieces, and a number of places to put them. You have a goal. Conversation doesn't work like that, and takes a vast amount of information to understand whether someone is being sarcastic.
    - brisance 9y ago
      So you’re saying that the people cited in the article accomplished something more significant than the AlphaGo team…?
      - TuringTest 9y ago
        Probably not, because the approach taken in the paper is identifying a small set of patterns that are present in sarcasm, not fully understanding the meaning and context of why the sentence is sarcastic. It's a useful tool with pragmatic applications in online discourse analysis, but not a solved problem.
      - Declanomous 9y ago
        I'm just saying it's easier to make progress when your universe is easier to define.

pvdebbe 9y ago

If humans can’t do simple math, why would you expect computers to? It’s like expecting AI to sum up 1000 integers without errors, when people can’t even do that 100% of the time.

goatlover 9y ago
There are some things easier for a computer to do, like lots of simple math, given that the computer can accurately store the result of each calculation, whereas people have difficulty doing so for 1000 integers. And there are some things that are relatively easy for humans to do, like communicate with natural language. Sarcasm falls into the later category. This is because human understanding is heavily social and conceptual.