[clug] Sarcasm detection

[Daniel Pittman]

Jeff <jeffm at ghostgun.com> writes:
> On 28/05/10 12:51 PM, Ivan Miljenovic wrote:
>
>> One of the side-conversations last night was related to how
>> programmers find it difficult to detect sarcasm; someone obviously got
>> sick of this problem and decided to solve it:
>> http://news.discovery.com/tech/sarasm-online-computer-program.html
>
> This brought to mind Poe's Law:
>
> Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible
> to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real
> thing

Heh.  Without the non-verbal indicators you get in normal conversation, human
communication loses somewhere between fifty and eighty percent of the data[1]
that normally gets exchanged.

My personal preference for email or face-to-face communication over
alternatives like IM, IRC, or telephone comes from this: in writing the author
has a chance, at least, to spend the time required to structure and phrase
their communication to work around this.

Instant communication like IM or the telephone has all the drawbacks of that
loss of information *and* all the drawbacks of the expectation of instant
response, making it the worst option.


So, yeah: when you write, those emoticons /are/ valuable, and whatever you say
the reader *is* almost certainly unable to see the tone you have in your head.

        Daniel

Footnotes: 
[1]  ...depending on who you ask and how you measure, by the most common and
     not-entirely-insane estimates, according to my reading, no warranty is
     implied, not safe for use on pets or children, discontinue use if signs
     of irritation occur.

-- 
✣ Daniel Pittman            ✉ daniel at rimspace.net            ☎ +61 401 155 707
               ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons