Comments on: Spin Software?

By: Charlie (Colorado)

Charlie (Colorado) — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:00:49 +0000

I dunno, guys. There's a lot of "impossibles" being thrown around that I don't think are all that impossible. First of all, I don't think that detecting the slant of an article is all that cognitively difficult, it's not a full-fledged understanding problem. Consider, for example, the difference in connotation between "Senator Kennedy today said the Bush Administration didn't have a plan to save Social Security," and "President Bush today claimed to have a plan to save Social Security." You don't need to know what "Social Security" or "Senator Kennedy" or "President Bush" denotes to identify that the person who put together the sentances gives more credence to Kennedy than Bush. But then the "Latent Semantic Analysis" work on essay grading is rather more complicated and nuanced than you might imagine too. I happen to have been following it for a while, and a lot of that stuff was done here at Colorado. Here's a web site: Latent Semantic Analysis. Whatever you may think of it philosophically, it appears the LSA essay grading is about as good as the grad students they normally use to do the grading. (Which is to say: Molly Bloom's Soliloquy may not do well, but then would the usual grad student give it a good score if they weren't told ahead of time it was Art?)

By: richard mcenroe

richard mcenroe — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:53:42 +0000

If this program works as well as that ‘where are you on the political axis test’ some British site runs, we’re liable to find out Operation Rescue endorsed John Kerry. These people are trying to create a program that not only reads humans’ imprecise or manipulative use of language, but will do so across cultural lines. These Brit scientists have as much chance of that as I have of understanding the Workers’ Revolutionary Party…

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:29:15 +0000

“We’re being replaced!”

No, we are not. That is strictly impossible. Language is intrinsically nebulous. It is not static and unchanging. The meaning of words will endlessly fluctuate. Human communication is not limited to mere verbal utterances. Our body movements and tone of voice are sometimes more important. Human beings often use irony. That is why there will never be real life HAL as depicted in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey.”

By: Eric Deamer

Eric Deamer — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 05:26:08 +0000

So this is essentially the first robo-blogger. Read a couple of sentences and then detect “liberal bias” or “conservative bias” or “anti (blank) bias”. This is what most bloggers do already. We’re being replaced!

By: Roy Lofquist

Roy Lofquist — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 04:24:37 +0000

Let me know what happens when you feed it a vintage Steyn or Hitchens. Or a Buckley or a Lileks for that matter.

By: truepeers

truepeers — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 03:00:37 +0000

Irony? For the scientist, it doesn’t matter what the article thinks it says, it’s what the program says it says… and (we’re almost there) what the writer says who knows what the program will say… I’ve got a friend working full time to model the stock market with a team of PhDs. So far any insight they get into how the market responds (has responded) to information and trends is quickly discounted in value. But, as he likes to say, we’re “almost” there. Such are our delusions.

By: PeterUK

PeterUK — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:46:56 +0000

How is it going to be on irony? Even carbon based lifeforms have trouble with that.

By: LC Mamapajamas

LC Mamapajamas — Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:42:26 +0000

Jeff: “I make the irresponsibly bold prediction that this technology will work nearly as well as the grammar checker in Microsoft Word.”

That bad, huh? Yee-owch!

By: Jeff Harrell

Jeff Harrell — Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:15:47 +0000

I make the irresponsibly bold prediction that this technology will work nearly as well as the grammar checker in Microsoft Word.

By: photoncourier.blogspot.com

photoncourier.blogspot.com — Mon, 04 Apr 2005 20:13:08 +0000

The problem of using software to understand human language, which is basically what this is about, is notoriously difficult. I wouldn’t object to the use of this technology for broad and general PR purposes…such as developing trend lines to see if the market loves or hates your new products. In that role, a 20% error rate will probably cancel out. But what really scares me is that people are talking about using similar technologies for the grading of student essays..in which case, the relevant sample size is one, and the errors do not cancel out. I think that’s irresponsible.