I have found it best to apply this to search tail queries (uncommon queries) because the relevance already sucks so any improvement is helpful. Often they are misspellings or unique wordings of common queries. If you have a product search engine, and you can recognize the product category then you have a much better chance of giving the user a relevant result even if the words are misspelled. If you can improve the overall relevance of tail queries, then revenue for the product search engine should increase as well.
I should also add that Spacy turns all words into vectors under-the-hood. Providing pre-trained word vectors accelerates the training process so you don't need as many examples (hopefully).
"Do they make commercial applications?" is the question.
The paradigm here is "Does method X get better answers than method Y?" as opposed to "Will we embarass ourselves if we put method Z into production?"
I have tried products from Amazon, IBM, Google and other companies and the one thing they have in common is they've never passed an acceptance test for me.
Language translation is a particular bad example of something where a "Clever Hans" effect can happen, where the reader's desire and capability for closure will fill in for mistakes the system makes and make it look like it performs better than it really does.
OpenCalais is pretty good in the financial domain. http://www.opencalais.com/opencalais-demo/
IBM isn’t great. Don’t know about Amazon.
It’s a per sentence matching task, and it increased the accuracy ~5% (!!) over a tuned FastText classifier, which in turn was much better than a traditional n-gram based classifier.
The accuracy is now good enough (and human like enough) that trained humans generally disagree with each other when trying to correct its “errors”.
Training set size was ~1000 labeled examples.
It's clear that people are putting up better and better numbers on certain tasks that are widely shared, but for all I know these will always be a bridesmaid and never a bride when it comes to being useful for something.
Back in the 1970s it was clear that it wasn't going to be easy to make rule-based parsers that were "good enough" but it seems that now the task has been defined down so that if you can do better than chance that's a miracle. Thus people can kid themselves into thinking they are practicing what Thomas Kuhn called "normal science" since they are in the same shared reality even if it is a delusion.