Like an AI Could Ever Spot Sarcasm

Post by JetSpiegel » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 9:06 AM UTC

knowThySelfx wrote: post #73

tinymollusk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We live in such interesting times! Any criteria we can come up with for computers would then need to be applied to people. But how could we do that, when humans answer questions so differently? Do we ask one human? A sample of humans? All humans? I don't think we'll find a criteria that delineates computers' "understanding" from our own. Perhaps the regularity from a sample of computers would be an indication. All th…

It is all context oriented. Lets see how these things develop. Lets ask a computer who just laughed at a joke "Why did you laugh? Or what made you laugh? Or Why did you find it funny?", and see what replies we get :D

Post by cabalamat » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 9:43 AM UTC

gowld wrote: post #53

cabalamat wrote: post #28

Sarcasm is almost certainly AI-complete. Consider this post: https://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2018/01/31/royal-mail-announ... which is pretty easy for a human to tell is sarcastic, but would be difficult for an AI unless it actually understood it.

Why? It has a few tell-tale word choices, and image recognition would indicate that the stamp images are "wrong" and/or correlated to humor memes.

Post by TuringTest » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 10:22 AM UTC

brisance wrote: post #74

Declanomous wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you’re saying that the people cited in the article accomplished something more significant than the AlphaGo team…?

Post by espe » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 10:39 AM UTC

dmreedy wrote: post #63

This is neat. Sarcasm is hard because it's a violation of the cooperative principle. I think describing it as simply incongruity is understating the difficulty of the problem (that said, good enough for 80% accuracy on the task is nothing to sniff at). In communication, you've got two systems attempting to convey their internal, unobservable states to eachother. This happens across a number of different channels, eac…

Post by razorunreal » Thu, Feb 01, 2018, 3:15 PM UTC

cabalamat wrote: post #28

Sarcasm is almost certainly AI-complete. Consider this post: https://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2018/01/31/royal-mail-announ... which is pretty easy for a human to tell is sarcastic, but would be difficult for an AI unless it actually understood it.