Very good point. I love the way you framed that. I took some very cursory attempts at doing it at the sentence level based on ngram representations, obviously t

Very good point. I love the way you framed that. I took some very cursory attempts at doing it at the sentence level based on ngram representations, obviously this was limited. You also bring up a very good point about humans being able to barely detect it. It's hard to infer from text without tone a good portion of the time. It'd be neat to see what we could do with tone as an input feature (obviously we couldn't get that most of the time) but maybe if enough tech becomes available that voice inputs are common, sarcasm can be a relevant enough problem to solve. In general, I know it's not really worth it to try to solve (that I could think of immediately anyways) aside from "just because". That being said: ambiguity is ambiguous. What can you do aside from approximate as best you can?