Content like this is what makes HN great. Very interesting read.
Unsupervised joke generation from big data
41–50 of 72 posts
Re: Unsupervised joke generation from big data
#42I considered working on this once. Especially "comeback" generation. If you look at the comments (or replies to comments) on 9GAG, most of them are pretty generic and follow some basic rules. I figure even a computer can learn to make them.
Well, you certainly set your sights high.
This provides a possible source for inspiration: Perhaps 9gag is not actually full of dumb people, but of dumb bots.
Faith in humanity restored?
If only it were so easy.
Re: Unsupervised joke generation from big data
#43I heard a story on NPR about an IBM research group developing an AI system to generate new recipes. The system analyzed existing recipes and knew about the biochemistry of human taste. I can't find an online reference.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/creating-recipes... (for me, that was Google's top link for 'ibm ai recipe generation')
And it comes with a joke in the comments:
Q: So, what would I use my supercomputer for?
A: Well . . . , you could keep your recipes on there.
Re: Unsupervised joke generation from big data
#44They chose not to put an example joke in the abstract?
Re: Unsupervised joke generation from big data
#45The last time automated joke generation was discussed on HN, I learned that a large, or at least vocal, amount of people consider it to the be responsibility of anybody running automatic joke generation software to supervise the software to ensure that no truly offensive jokes are inadvertently generated. I don't agree that such a responsibility exists, but it is probably worth keeping in mind that others do if you a…
You're already considering censoring the results? If a system could reliably generate funny or offensive comments I'd be elated.
Computational humor is hard enough the way it is; do we really have to worry if our algorithms have table manners?
Re: Unsupervised joke generation from big data
#46The last time automated joke generation was discussed on HN, I learned that a large, or at least vocal, amount of people consider it to the be responsibility of anybody running automatic joke generation software to supervise the software to ensure that no truly offensive jokes are inadvertently generated. I don't agree that such a responsibility exists, but it is probably worth keeping in mind that others do if you a…
interesting ethical question - one is supposedly responsible for behavior of his automated tool/robot. If that automated tool is able to build and initiate execution of another, more complex (well big "if" of course here) automated tool ... at what level of complexity of separation the original responsibility ends, if any.
How would you even build a bot to build a joke-bot? Genetic algorithms?
Re: Unsupervised joke generation from big data
#47The last time automated joke generation was discussed on HN, I learned that a large, or at least vocal, amount of people consider it to the be responsibility of anybody running automatic joke generation software to supervise the software to ensure that no truly offensive jokes are inadvertently generated. I don't agree that such a responsibility exists, but it is probably worth keeping in mind that others do if you a…
You're already considering censoring the results? If a system could reliably generate funny or offensive comments I'd be elated. Computational humor is hard enough the way it is; do we really have to worry if our algorithms have table manners?
I'm saying that before you write a game with an NPC that makes computer generated jokes, you should probably make sure it isn't going to be making any rape jokes.
I don't think doing that should be necessary, I'm just pointing out that there are people who could be offended, even if they know the joke is algorithmically generated. If you are okay with a few people being mad at you, then knock yourself out, but if it might cause a PR issue that you don't want to deal with then you should exercise caution.
I'm trying to offer a pragmatic warning, not make an ethical argument.
Re: Unsupervised joke generation from big data
#48The last time automated joke generation was discussed on HN, I learned that a large, or at least vocal, amount of people consider it to the be responsibility of anybody running automatic joke generation software to supervise the software to ensure that no truly offensive jokes are inadvertently generated. I don't agree that such a responsibility exists, but it is probably worth keeping in mind that others do if you a…
You're already considering censoring the results? If a system could reliably generate funny or offensive comments I'd be elated. Computational humor is hard enough the way it is; do we really have to worry if our algorithms have table manners?
WGPCGR
Re: Unsupervised joke generation from big data
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're already considering censoring the results? If a system could reliably generate funny or offensive comments I'd be elated. Computational humor is hard enough the way it is; do we really have to worry if our algorithms have table manners?
I'm saying that before you write a game with an NPC that makes computer generated jokes, you should probably make sure it isn't going to be making any rape jokes. I don't think doing that should be necessary, I'm just pointing out that there are people who could be offended, even if they know the joke is algorithmically generated. If you are okay with a few people being mad at you, then knock yourself out, but if it…
> If you are okay with a few people being mad at you, then knock yourself out, but it might cause a PR issue
Worked pretty well for Rockstar Games -- just sayin' ;)
Re: Unsupervised joke generation from big data
#50I am writing a bot to play Cards Against Humanity. One trick to know if a sentence is funny or controversial that works quite well: Simply have the bot post it in an IRC channel or chat-room and count the number of responses it elicits (and give extra weight to words like "lol"). The more people fail the Turing-test, the funnier/controversial the statement.
Anecdotal, but I've found that if you play one player 'at random' where you simply draw and play the card unseen, that random player tends to do pretty well and even win a significant number of times.
I think what this draws on is the tendency of humans to interpret unexpected statements which shift out understanding as humorous. (Joke setup which leads me to expect punchline x, but what instead what follows is y.)