Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tech Companies Looking Into Sarcasm Detection

Posted by Soulskill on from the meta-comment-challenge:-complete-sincerity dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes "Now here's the greatest thing ever: French tech firm Spotter has apparently devised an analytics platform capable of identifying sarcastic comments, according to the BBC. Spotter's platform scans social media and other sources to create reputation reports for clients such as the EU Commission and Air France. As with most analytics packages that determine popular sentiment, the software parses semantics, heuristics and linguistics. However, automated data-analytics systems often have a difficult time with some of the more nuanced elements of human speech, such as sarcasm and irony — an issue that Spotter has apparently overcome to some degree, although company executives admit that their solution isn't perfect. (Duh.) Spotter isn't alone: IBM, Salesforce, and other IT vendors are hard at work on analytics software that can more perfectly determine when you're mouthing off, you little punks. In theory, sarcasm detection can help with customer service, and judging how well products are doing on the open market... and we all know it's going to work perfectly, right? Nothing could possibly go wrong with automated platforms built to assess the nuances of human speech."

28 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Great! by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    I hope they get 75% of it right. My personal guess is that around 25% of humans are unable to detect any sort of sarcasm, perhaps not quite as bad as Sheldon, but quite bad.

    1. Re:Great! by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Funny

      My personal guess is that around 25% of humans are unable to detect any sort of sarcasm

      And most of them seem to post at Slashdot.

      P.S. Irony, satire and facetiousness don't fare too well either.

    2. Re:Great! by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Informative

      But Poe's law predicted a long time ago, that such detection is, in many cases, actually impossible to accomplish.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    3. Re:Great! by meerling · · Score: 2

      I propose that the very attempt to detect it is in fact a form of it.
      Especially when the output is, "No, he's being totally serious, really!" :)

    4. Re:Great! by plover · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem comes with professional violators of Poe's Law, such as Stephen Colbert's character, "Steven Colbert of the Colbert Report". He's a parody of every right wing nut job talk show host. His schtick is to take a right-wing agenda item and push it beyond its obvious short term benefits to its logical but socially detrimental conclusion, where he continues to defend it even more vigorously using Republican platform talking points, ad hominem attacks, and every other logical fallacy he can throw at it. He does this consistently without ever breaking character. And he has a flock of brilliant writers who are able to help him pull this off night after night.

      As a matter of fact, he is so consistent that he was mistaken for an actual right wing comedian, and was invited to speak at the White House Correspondent's Dinner in 2006 where he lampooned George W. Bush to his face for fifteen straight minutes. Very few of the faithful present laughed at the routine. President Bush turned red almost from the get-go, politely grimaced out a smile, sat through the entire speech, and left the stage immediately after Colbert finished. I have no doubt that heads rolled within five minutes. ( My favorite joke from the event went something like, " 'Those naysayers claim that this administration is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.' That is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!" )

      --
      John
    5. Re:Great! by JustOK · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh, come on. Everyone knows it's not an act.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    6. Re:Great! by jones_supa · · Score: 2

      Well, at least there is the classic magic trick of beginning a post with "I expect to be modded down to oblivion by saying this, but..." which actually gets you modded up.

  2. Yeah... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Like that's going to work.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, no, you misunderstand. It will work just fine.

    2. Re:Yeah... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Like that's going to work.

      Excuse me, I am a sarcasm detector and I have trouble with general semantics processing. Are you implying that this technology is going to commute to the place of employment by means of ambulation?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Yeah... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      No, no, you misunderstand. It will work just fine.

      I'm sure it will.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Yeah... by PPH · · Score: 2

      Like that's going to work.

      Of course it will. They are going to use AI.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Yeah... by PPH · · Score: 2

      Like that's going to work.

      Of course it will. They are going to use AI.

      Good luck with that.

      Thanks a lot.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  3. Until they run into this guy... by decipher_saint · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh! I'm not being sar-cas-tic.

    http://youtu.be/ziH9St7ajuw

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  4. Fool's errand by ericloewe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sarcasm is very frequently indicated by nuances that aren't transmitted through text. If humans have trouble getting sarcasm out of text, why should an algorithm do any better with the same set of data?

    1. Re:Fool's errand by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It shouldn't be. People have proposed punctuation marks for Sarcasm and Irony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_punctuation#Irony_mark

  5. Re:HA! by ackthpt · · Score: 2

    If they make it work and ever point that at slashdot, the readings are gonna be flying off the charts!

    Slashdot would be a poor test bed for the project. Sarcasm is too easily detected on here to be useful, it's as subtle as being hit by a brick.

    Now ... if they pointed it at Faux Nooz, that would be pretty interesting to see how much the presenters don't believe of the garbage they're spewing to keep the market other broadcasters have neglected: the disenfranchised intelligentsia.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  6. a sarcasm detector that a real useful invention by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    simpsons did it

  7. Re:Poe's law by icebike · · Score: 2

    Why would you expect the software to be any better at this than the humans?

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  8. Sarcasm detector by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What we really need is a lie detector, a spam detector, and a troll detector

    Extra points for the spam detector, THAT is what is most sorely needed, and what is so inadequately provided thus far.

  9. Small drawback by AdamWill · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately, there's been a setback in the schedule. They tested it on Slashdot and it exploded.

  10. Yeah, right... by hyades1 · · Score: 2

    ...They can't tell that "Give her joy by split her halfways with yoou massif kawk" is spam, but they're going to identify sarcasm with a big analytics package.

    Right.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  11. Not sure that's possible... by abroadwin · · Score: 2

    Often the detection of sarcasm relies on understanding of popular opinion on a topic. I don't think we'll have any magic bullet algorithm to detect sarcasm until we have hard AI with a far-reaching corpus of current knowledge. Take these two sentences: "DRM is the best. It makes everything so much easier!" and "The iPhone is the best! It makes everything so much easier!" Ok, algorithm. Pick the one containing sarcasm...

  12. False positives in both sides by gmuslera · · Score: 2

    Is not like you won't end in jail for a sarcastic comment, or get expelled over a joke, it will work in the other way, seeing sarcams where they aren't and getting you anyway. And getting this mess in your private mail, where you usually joke and don't care a lot about potential readings of what you say, because, well, you don't have anything to hide, will make life interesting in the next years.

    1. Re:False positives in both sides by lemur3 · · Score: 2

      When I first saw this story I wondered if they were to apply it in a legal sense, and not for marketing..

      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80/80we20.htm

      they have things called "anti social behavior orders" in england to curb.. well, anti social behavior, one such example was this (source above):

      The oldest recipient of an order to date is an 87-year-old who among other things is forbidden from being sarcastic to his neighbours (July 2003). He was subsequently found guilty of breaking the terms of his order on three separate occasions.

  13. -1 Woosh by doug141 · · Score: 2

    I've often thought slashdot would benefit from a -1 Woosh mod option.

  14. Missing the point by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Everyone is missing the point. The real question is why do they want a sarcasm detector?

    Implicitly we all realize that they want to filter sarcastic remarks out of online posting. Sarcasm is a very effective way to combine criticism and humor, and the result can be a very effective critique. This makes it very troublesome to those with power and money. They don't want anyone rocking the boat or getting uppity.

    So instead of addressing potentially meaningful critical responses, or accepting the reality that people enjoy making bad jokes, they seek to automate the process of self serving censorship.

    The intent is bad. I'm sure that organizations considering using this technology don't care about false positives. What they want is for you to STFU, unless you say what they want you to say.

    So while Slashdot posters make the truly obvious jokes, or argue about technology and false positive/negative rates, this reveals the ugly truth about the intent of big online organizations. They want to enforce a one way channel where users are censored. Considering that Slashdot considers itself to be an elite corner of the internet, I find it pathetic that no one has a clue about what this means.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  15. I have the algorithm here by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    1) Is the internet connected?

    2) Well there you go.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley