A model of artificial humor, a machine that tells jokes, or at least inputs
jokes and outputs whether or not they are funny. Identify associations of the
form (A ~ B) and (B ~ C) in the audience language model where (A ~ C) is
believed to be false or unlikely through other associations. Test whe
Matt,
Humor is dependent not on inductive reasoning by association, reversed or
otherwise, but on the crossing of whole matrices/ spaces/ scripts .. and
that good old AGI standby, domains. See Koestler esp. for how it's one
version of all creativity -
http://www.casbs.org/~turner/art/deacon_
Here you go - should be dead simple to analyse formula - and produce
program:)
http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/games/jokes/light_bulb.html
How many software engineers does it take to change a light bulb? Two. One
always leaves in the middle of the project.
-
Matt: Humor detection obviously requires a sophisticated language model and
knowledge of popular culture, current events, and what jokes have been told
before. Since entertainment is a big sector of the economy, an AGI needs all
human knowledge, not just knowledge that is work related.
In many
your total fabrications (a.k.a. mental masturbation).
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Matt: Humor detection obviously requires a sophisticated language mode
Obviously you have no plans for endowing your computer with a self and a
body, that has emotions and can shake with laughter. Or tears.
Actually, many of us do. And this is why your posts are so problematical.
You invent what *we* believe and what we intend to do. And then you
criticize your
Tomcat and arguing that the wings don't move right for a
bird and, besides, it's too unstable for a human to fly (unassisted :-).
Read the papers in the first link and *maybe* we can have a useful
conversation . . . .
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL P
t recognize it.
You're looking at the blueprints of F-14 Tomcat and arguing that the wings
don't move right for a bird and, besides, it's too unstable for a human to
fly (unassisted :-).
Read the papers in the first link and *maybe* we can have a useful
conversation . . . .
-
l Message -
From: "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor
1.Autonomic [disembodied] computing" is obviously radically different from
having a body with a sympathetically controlled engine are
There is no computer or robot that keeps getting physically excited or
depressed by its computations. (But it would be a good idea).
you don't even realize that laptops (and many other computers -- not to
mention appliances) currently do precisely what you claim that no computer
or robot does.
MAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor
There is no computer or robot that keeps getting physically excited or
depressed by its computations. (But it would be a good idea).
you don't even realize that laptops (and many
--- On Wed, 9/10/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4.To have a sense of humour, as I more or less indicated,
> you have to be
> able to identify with the "funny guy" making the
> error - and that is an
> *embodied* identification. The humour that gets the
> biggest, most physical
>
f the incompetent).
>
> You seem more intent on winning an argument than learning or even honestly
> addressing the points that you yourself raised.
>
> I'll let you go back to your fantasies of being smarter than the rest of us
> now.
>
> - Original Message -
&
I've seen humour modelled as a form of mental dissonance, when an
expectation is defied, especially a grave one. It may arise, then, as
a higher-order recognition of bizarreness in the overall state of the
mind at that point. Humour seems to me to be somehow fundamental to
intelligence, rather than
Here is an example I recall. A vine crosses your path and you think
there is a snake on your foot. Then you realize the nature of the vine
but the systemic effects of snake fear do not immediately subside. The
result is calming laughter. Perhaps, then, it's an evolved
compensation mechanism for bio
Matt,
Yes embodiment is essential to the unconscious brain's recognizing the joke
in the first place. If the joke is, say, about a guy getting his cock caught
in a zipper, it's your embodied identification with him, that has you
doubling up and clutching your guts with laughter. Without a bod
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Without a body, you couldn't understand the joke.
False. Would you also say that without a body, you couldn't understand
3D space ?
BTW it's kind of sad that people find it funny when others get hurt. I
wonder what are the
I think artificial humor has gotten little attention because humor (along with
art and emotion) is mostly a right-brain activity, while science, math, and
language are mostly left-brained. It should be no surprise that since most AI
researches are left-brained, their interest is in studying prob
gnored
John LaMuth
www.ethicalvalues.com
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Mahoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor
I think artificial humor has gotten little attention because humor (along
with
The most plausible explanation I've heard is that humor evolved as a
social weapon for use by a group of low status individuals against a
high status individual. This explains why laughter is involuntarily
contagious, why it mostly occurs in conversation, why children like
watching Tom and Jerry an
On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:29 PM, Jiri Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Without a body, you couldn't understand the joke.
False. Would you also say that without a body, you couldn't understand
3D space ?
It depends on what is meant by, an
I think it's the surprize that makes you laugh actually, not physical
pain in other people. I find myself laughing at my own mistakes often
- not because they hurt (in fact if they did hurt they wouldn't be
funny) but because I get surprized by them.
Valentina
On 9/10/08, Jiri Jelinek <[EMAIL PRO
Samantha, & Mike,
>> Would you also say that without a body, you couldn't understand
>> 3D space ?
>
> It depends on what is meant by, and the value of, "understand 3D space".
> If the intelligence needs to navigate or work with 3D space or even
> understand intelligence whose very concepts are fi
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Jiri Jelinek wrote:
> If you talk to a program about changing 3D scene and the program then
> correctly answers questions about [basic] spatial relationships
> between the objects then I would say it understands 3D. Of course the
> program needs to work with a queri
Jiri,
Quick answer because in rush. Notice your "if" ... Which programs actually
do understand any *general* concepts of orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly
bet, didn't...and neither do any others.
The v. word "orientation" indicates the reality that every picture has a
point of view, and refe
> From: John LaMuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> As I have previously written, this issue boils down as "one is serious
> or
> one is not to be taken this way" a meta-order perspective)... the key
> feature in humor and comedy -- the meta-message being "don't take me
> seriously"
>
> That is why
llenge vehicles?
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Jiri,
Quick answer because in rush. Notice your "if" ... Which programs actually
do understand any *genera
Mike,
Imagine a simple 3D scene with 2 different-size spheres. A simple
program allows you to change positions of the spheres and it can
answer question "Is the smaller sphere inside the bigger sphere?"
[Yes|Partly|No]. I can write such program in no time. Sure, it's
extremely simple, but it deals
Jiri,
Clearly a limited 3d functionality is possible for a program such as you
describe - as for SHRDLU. But what we're surely concerned with here is
generality. So fine start with a restricted world of say different kinds of
kid's blocks and similar. But then the program must be able to tell
r do any others" when talking about being able to
"understand any *general* concepts of orientation"
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor
ans can do that.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Thu, 9/11/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor
> To: agi@v2.listbox.com
> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 1:31 PM
> Jiri,
Otherwise, you could always claim
that a machine doesn't understand anything because only humans can do
that.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Thu, 9/11/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial
Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>To "understand" is to "REALISE" what [on earth, or
>in the [real] world] is being talked about.
Nice dodge. How do you distinguish between when a computer realizes something
and when it just reacts as if it realizes it?
Yeah, I know. Turing dodged the qu
Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To "understand" is to "REALISE" what [on earth, or
in the [real] world] is being talked about.
Matt: Nice dodge. How do you distinguish between when a computer realizes
something and when it just reacts as if it realizes it?
Yeah, I know. Turing do
- Original Message -
From: "John G. Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 8:28 AM
Subject: RE: [agi] Artificial humor
>> From: John LaMuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> As I have previously written, this issue boils down
Mike,
>The plane flew over the hill
>The play is over
Using a formal language can help to avoid many of these issues.
>But then the program must be able to tell what is "in" what or outside, what
>is behind/over etc.
The communication module in my experimental AGI design includes
several speci
Matt,
"To understand/realise" is to be distinguished from (I would argue) "to
comprehend" statements.
The one is to be able to point to the real objects referred to. The other is
merely to be able to offer or find an alternative or dictionary definition
of the statements. A translation. Like the
--- On Thu, 9/11/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "To understand/realise" is to be distinguished
> from (I would argue) "to comprehend" statements.
How long are we going to go round and round with this? How do you know if a
machine "comprehends" something?
Turing explained why he d
Matt,
What are you being so tetchy about? The issue is what it takes for any
agent, human or machine.to understand information .
You give me an extremely complicated and ultimately weird test/paper, which
presupposes that machines, humans and everyone else can only exhibit, and be
tested o
--- On Fri, 9/12/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt,
>
> What are you being so tetchy about? The issue is what it
> takes for any
> agent, human or machine.to understand information .
How are you going to understand the issues behind programming a computer for
human intellige
Matt: How are you going to understand the issues behind programming a
computer for human intelligence if you have never programmed a computer?
Matt,
We simply have a big difference of opinion. I'm saying there is no way a
computer [or agent, period] can understand language if it can't basic
llowing program understand?
main(){printf("Ah, now I understand!");}
You need a precise test. That is what Turing did.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Sat, 9/13/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re:
Jiri and Matt et al,
I'm getting v. confident about the approach I've just barely begun to
outline. Let's call it "realistics" - the title for a new, foundational
branch of metacognition, that will oversee all forms of information, incl.
esp. language, logic, and maths, and also all image for
On Friday 12 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
> "to understand a piece of information and its "information objects",
> (eg words) , is to "realise" (or know) how they refer to "real
> objects" in the real world, (and, ideally, and often necessarily, to
> be able to point to and engage with thos
Mike,
> How will you understand, and recognize when information objects/ e.g
> language/words are "unreal" ? e.g. Turn yourself inside out.
>... unreal/untrue/metaphorical in different and sometimes multiple
>simultaneous ways
It's like teaching a baby. You don't want to use confusing
language/m
45 matches
Mail list logo
