3 ms·
People didn’t expect to be humbled by a machine at the game of Go either. Yet here we are.
by 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 agoApples and oranges comparison. Go is much closer to chess than it is to recognizing sarcasm.
- brisance 9y agoIt 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 agoAlphaGo 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 agoI’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 agoOn 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 agoSo you’re saying that the people cited in the article accomplished something more significant than the AlphaGo team…?
- TuringTest 9y agoProbably 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 agoI'm just saying it's easier to make progress when your universe is easier to define.