A computer that can detect sarcasm

Straight from Neatorama:

A research team at Hebrew University in Israel has developed a computer program that can recognize sarcasm with about 77% accuracy:

To create such an algorithm, the team scanned 66,000 Amazon.com product reviews, with three different human annotators tagging sentences for sarcasm. The team then identified certain sarcastic patterns that emerged in the reviews and created a classification algorithm that puts each statement into a sarcastic class.

The algorithms were then trained on that seed set of 80 sentences from the collection of reviews. These annotated sentences helped the algorithm learn what sorts of words and patterns distinguish sarcastic remarks - those that mean the opposite of what they literally convey, or that convey a sentiment inconsistent with the literal reading.

Wow that's so totally interesting and amazing!

(I'll bet my comment easily falls into the 33% of sarcasm that the computer doesn't detect)

i-c903dc401f920791f2847e861ad31527-dilbert-sarcasm-supportiveness-difference.jpg

More like this

An old college friend and accomplished writer, John Scalzi, recently posted a list of writing tips for nonprofessionals, which I'd highly recommend for professionals and nonprofessionals alike. One of his most unusual suggestions is to "speak what you write" -- literally, to read your writing out…
Sarcasm is a cognitive challenge. In order to get the sarcastic sentiment, we can't simply decode the utterance, or decipher the literal meaning of the sentence. Instead, we have to understand the meaning of the words in their larger social context. For example, if it's a beautiful day outside -…
The red oval on the right represents a known eBay fraudster. How can we use that information to locate others? Follow the interactions. Fraudulent eBay users typically build up their online "reputation" by conducting transactions with accomplices who give them phony "positive" feedback. These…
The best mysteries are ones where the reader, if they are following along carefully, can figure out the answer to the problem as the lead characters do. If you read science blogs and love evolution, then you know exactly where this is headed: Molecular evolution in court: analysis of a large…

So, the methodology involved humans first identifying sarcastic comments. The 77% accuracy is probably just how closely the computer matched what humans found to be sarcastic. Anecdotal evidence has taught me that less then 20% of humans seem able to detect sarcasm, so the computer only would detect about 15% of all sarcasm.

Interesting, amazing, and at least as accurate as anti ballistic missile defense systems! I foresee huge government contracts for this technology with immediate deployment in the Senate chambers.

Oh, a sarcasm detector. That's really useful!

[serious]Though I'm sure everyone knows that quote. As long as this one doesn't have problems when it gets overloaded.[/serious]

By Katherine (not verified) on 18 May 2010 #permalink

77% accuracy makes that program better at detecting sarcasm than the average Internet reader.

That really is interesting and amazing.

Better yet, they'll have Don Rickles to try it out on. (However, they should be cautious; this could lead to the overload Katherine warned about.)

By Chris Winter (not verified) on 19 May 2010 #permalink

Next we'll have an application that generates sarcasm. Imagine the possibilities! Nobody's job is safe anymore. (I'm looking at you, Jon Stewart.)

"77% accuracy makes that program better at detecting sarcasm than the average Internet reader."

haha, great remark, i've just thought the same after reading this post ;)

Interesting, amazing, and at least as accurate as anti ballistic missile defense systems! I foresee huge government contracts for this technology with immediate deployment in the Senate chambers.

Better yet, they'll have Don Rickles to try it out on. (However, they should be cautious; this could lead to the overload Katherine warned about

Oh, a sarcasm detector. That's really useful!

[serious]Though I'm sure everyone knows that quote. As long as this one doesn't have problems when it gets overloaded.[/serious]

That really is interesting and amazing.

Better yet, they'll have Don Rickles to try it out on. (However, they should be cautious; this could lead to the overload Katherine warned about.)

Now we can not wait, but health reform should be established in a way that the beneficiaries are those who suffer everyday with different diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's, arthritis, diseases that are painful and have to suffer day after day, for them must be a priority.

Ely Lilly
Findrxonline

By Ely Lilly (not verified) on 22 Oct 2010 #permalink

metin2 hile oyunlarının tek adresi bizim sitemizdir yüzlerce metin2 hilesini bularak indirebilirsiniz son cıkan güncel oyun hileleri ve nice eklenen yüzlerce metin2 hile sizleri bekliyor türkiyenin tek güncel hile sitesiyiz suanlık

Don Rickles to try it out on. (However, they should be cautious; this could lead to the overload Katherine warned about Oh, thank you for you good.

Interesting, amazing, and at least as accurate as anti ballistic missile defense systems! I foresee huge government contracts for this technology with immediate deployment in the Senate chambers.

100 - 77 = 23 (%)

By Hadnagy Laszlo (not verified) on 18 Dec 2010 #permalink

@Ken: "Anecdotal evidence has taught me that less then 20% of humans seem able to detect sarcasm, so the computer only would detect about 15% of all sarcasm."

Even if only 20% of humans detected sarcasm, that would not translate to only 20% of sarcasm being detected, thus your considering the 77% of 20% sarcasm is wrong.

By Hadnagy Laszlo (not verified) on 18 Dec 2010 #permalink

@Hadnagy: "100 - 77 = 23 (%)"

no really?

By The Omnibrain (not verified) on 19 Dec 2010 #permalink

hahaha u'r all funny!!!