3 ms·
Yes, but a little realism here: They have actually moved it from 80% (using single word analysis) to 85%. That's fantastic, but not the work of the gods.
by warmfuzzykitten 13y ago
Yes, but a little realism here: They have actually moved it from 80% (using single word analysis) to 85%. That's fantastic, but not the work of the gods.
- nl 13y agoI dunno.. Sentiment analysis is often akin to mind reading. I don't know how the average human would do, but given how often people miss jokes & sarcasm on forums & emails it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that the average human analysis would score below 85% on single sentences without context. (And to be fair to the OP, they said 95% would be the work of gods, and I'd certainly agree that would be better than most humans could do)
- ninjin 13y agoI agree that the article is sensational and what really confuses me is that when I read the article and their press release (found below) they are far more humble and down to earth (I really like the writing and the work in general). My personal guess is that this is a classical case of a journalist going overboard (been there...). http://engineering.stanford.edu/news/stanford-algorithm-analyzes-sentence-sentiment-advances-machine-learning http://engineering.stanford.edu/news/stanford-algorithm-anal...
- PeterisP 13y agoIn general, after the 'easy' gains on a decently researched machine learning problem have been done, a new approach that gets, say, a 2% increase (say, from 91% to 93%) is considered a significant breakthrough and happens rarely - 5-10 years or so. 80%->85% is great. 80%->95% could be called work of the gods, given the 4x reduction in error rate.