4 ms·

I would just like to point out that there are many things that are hard for humans to do but easy for machines (cars drive much faster then humans can run, for

I would just like to point out that there are many things that are hard for humans to do but easy for machines (cars drive much faster then humans can run, for example). So that argument alone is not persuasive. Better would be to argue that it is not only hard for humans to determine between sarcasm and genuine speech, we have no idea of how it would be done well. It is not a problem which is dominated by our limited abilities, it is dominated by imperfect knowledge (the inability to know the internal thoughts of another person). This same limitation seems to apply to any automated solution which only had access to the public speech (text, tweet, etc.). Therein lies the intractable difficulty. However, consider if we had a device that could read minds. Maybe some model is built that can accurately translate brain waves, or the input of subdermal probes into thoughts and intentions. Then it would be much simpler to write a program that could detect sarcasm. It might still need the physical presence of the author, but again there may be a creative solution to that. Just because it is hard for humans doesn't mean we can't make it easy using our tools. That is one of the prime characteristics of our species.

skizm 12y ago
My point is, for any given computer program, a human, given enough time, can sit down with pencil+paper and figure out the output given an input. If humans can't yet detect sarcasm accurately, that is evidence that it will be near impossible to do it programmatically. Edit: I'm not saying to not try. Clark's first law says we should always try things, even the crazy stuff. (as you can tell I like my eponymous laws).
- e12e 12y ago
  > My point is, for any given computer program, a human, given enough time, can sit down with pencil+paper and figure out the output given an input. No human is ever given enough time. If you're not done in a hundred years (tops) -- you'll never get done. It's an interesting thought that a program that has access to a "Total Intelligence Awareness" feed, might actually have more context than any one human has (and can possibly have) -- and by extension be better at detecting sarcasm.
  - skizm 12y ago
    You have missed the point it seems. The actual amount of time is irrelevant. If a program can get an answer given some input, so can a human (given infinite time). If a human can not get reliably get an accurate answer to something (given infinite time), no machine can. That isn't a guess or a hypothesis, that is just how programming works.
    - e12e 12y ago
      >> No human is ever given enough time. > > You have missed the point it seems. The actual amount of time is > irrelevant. If a program can get an answer given some input, so > can a human (given infinite time). I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "a human (given infinite time)" -- what does that mean in terms of contrast to a (Turing) machine? We do absolutely know that humans are fallible, so even if a human has enough time, and enough paper -- there is no guarantee that a human can duplicate the effort of a machine in following an algorithm. You are assuming both the human and machine are given the same input (perhaps you think of only looking at the tweet in isolation). This might be how a human would intuitively try to determine if a given tweet is sarcastic. The machine might be able to look at and review the authors entire corpus of written statements, the authors movements in the past 20 years, analyse all tv programs and other writings the author has ever referenced along with an exhaustive study of all events in the authors life --- In short --- a human might not have "enough time" to "figure it out with pencil and paper" in the same way the machine can. So, I agree with your initial point: If we cannot define what it means to tell if something is sarcasm or not (do we for instance care what the author meant, or only how the author was perceived? Can we be certain that the author knows if he/she is being sarcastic?) --- then how can a we program a machine to tell the difference? On the other hand, if we can agree on some rules for what we might more likely consider to be sarcastic, it isn't entirely impossible that that algorithm can use so much data to draw its conclusions, that it would in effect be impossible for a human to verify -- because a human doesn't have infinite time. Or in other words: it's not inconceivable that we could create a system, that ends up being better at telling sarcasm from honest opinion than humans are. But it is likely that such a system would come to its decision in a very different way than a human would.
- jdbernard 12y ago
  That's not necessarily true. We have already written programs which are able to come to conclusions which are not obvious from a human perspective. This is fairly common with big-data algorithms where a human just can't see the same pattern because we have different limitations in our ability to process mass amounts of data. My point was that it is human nature to build tools which allow us to exceed our own limitations. Sure, from my vantage point I see little reason to be optimistic about an algorithmic solution to sarcasm detection, but "if man were meant to fly he would have been given wings." Also, the example I gave is a simple solution: mind reading is a trivial solution to sarcasm detection, and it is not inconceivable from our current point of technology.

skizm 12y ago

My point is, for any given computer program, a human, given enough time, can sit down with pencil+paper and figure out the output given an input. If humans can't yet detect sarcasm accurately, that is evidence that it will be near impossible to do it programmatically. Edit: I'm not saying to not try. Clark's first law says we should always try things, even the crazy stuff. (as you can tell I like my eponymous laws).

e12e 12y ago
> My point is, for any given computer program, a human, given enough time, can sit down with pencil+paper and figure out the output given an input. No human is ever given enough time. If you're not done in a hundred years (tops) -- you'll never get done. It's an interesting thought that a program that has access to a "Total Intelligence Awareness" feed, might actually have more context than any one human has (and can possibly have) -- and by extension be better at detecting sarcasm.
- skizm 12y ago
  You have missed the point it seems. The actual amount of time is irrelevant. If a program can get an answer given some input, so can a human (given infinite time). If a human can not get reliably get an accurate answer to something (given infinite time), no machine can. That isn't a guess or a hypothesis, that is just how programming works.
  - e12e 12y ago
    >> No human is ever given enough time. > > You have missed the point it seems. The actual amount of time is > irrelevant. If a program can get an answer given some input, so > can a human (given infinite time). I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "a human (given infinite time)" -- what does that mean in terms of contrast to a (Turing) machine? We do absolutely know that humans are fallible, so even if a human has enough time, and enough paper -- there is no guarantee that a human can duplicate the effort of a machine in following an algorithm. You are assuming both the human and machine are given the same input (perhaps you think of only looking at the tweet in isolation). This might be how a human would intuitively try to determine if a given tweet is sarcastic. The machine might be able to look at and review the authors entire corpus of written statements, the authors movements in the past 20 years, analyse all tv programs and other writings the author has ever referenced along with an exhaustive study of all events in the authors life --- In short --- a human might not have "enough time" to "figure it out with pencil and paper" in the same way the machine can. So, I agree with your initial point: If we cannot define what it means to tell if something is sarcasm or not (do we for instance care what the author meant, or only how the author was perceived? Can we be certain that the author knows if he/she is being sarcastic?) --- then how can a we program a machine to tell the difference? On the other hand, if we can agree on some rules for what we might more likely consider to be sarcastic, it isn't entirely impossible that that algorithm can use so much data to draw its conclusions, that it would in effect be impossible for a human to verify -- because a human doesn't have infinite time. Or in other words: it's not inconceivable that we could create a system, that ends up being better at telling sarcasm from honest opinion than humans are. But it is likely that such a system would come to its decision in a very different way than a human would.
jdbernard 12y ago
That's not necessarily true. We have already written programs which are able to come to conclusions which are not obvious from a human perspective. This is fairly common with big-data algorithms where a human just can't see the same pattern because we have different limitations in our ability to process mass amounts of data. My point was that it is human nature to build tools which allow us to exceed our own limitations. Sure, from my vantage point I see little reason to be optimistic about an algorithmic solution to sarcasm detection, but "if man were meant to fly he would have been given wings." Also, the example I gave is a simple solution: mind reading is a trivial solution to sarcasm detection, and it is not inconceivable from our current point of technology.