The problem is: humour is such a natural and instantaneous thing that any attempt to study it in slow-motion would make a boring analysis of it.
Subramani -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mufazal munshi Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 2:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AI] Did you hear the one about the computer with a sense ofhumour? that article is not at all funny!! i think i will add a tickle or two to it!! it is so long that i almost fell asleep trying to understand the technical study involved!! no offense meant to the sender please!! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sanjay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 1:05 PM Subject: [AI] Did you hear the one about the computer with a sense of humour? > The article below is pasted from New Scientist Nov. 24. > Did you hear the one about the computer with a sense of > humour?; A physicist has proposed a model explaining > how information processing in the brain leads to humour > - and it could herald computers able to tell jokes > > Mark Buchanan > > DID you hear the one about the computer with a sense of humour? > Didn't think so. Computers can do many things, but stand-up > comedy is not one of them. Yet the idea that computers can be > witty might not be all that far-fetched. Perhaps machines need > not be conscious to understand humour, and even to invent and > tell jokes. > > Physicist Igor Suslov of the Kapitza Institute for Physical > Problems in Moscow, Russia, has designed a computer model which > he says explains the evolution of humour. Our ability to > experience humour, he suggests, ultimately depends on quirks in > how the brain handles information. > > As a student, Suslov performed in the university theatre. "We > didn't have much time to write our plays," he recalls. "I began > to wonder if it might be possible to create jokes more or less > automatically." He didn't work out how back then, but he never > forgot the problem. Now he thinks he sees at least the broad > outline of how humour works and why it evolved in the first place. > > Verbal jokes, Suslov suggests, work by drawing the mind into > error. It first settles on one meaning, and then has to correct > itself and see another. Take this joke, for example: > > Father (reprovingly): "Do you know what happens to liars when they > die?" > > Johnny: "Yes sir, they lie still." > > The wit of the line comes from the way the brain pirouettes to > interpret "lie" in two different ways. This kind of error, Suslov > argues, is at the root of most humour, and stems from a > fundamental difficulty the brain faces when trying to interpret > incoming data. Whether it's words, sounds or visual images, the > brain has to link incoming information to patterns it knows from > experience. Much of this process takes place unconsciously. Only > when the brain settles on an interpretation for a chunk of data > does it send that interpretation into consciousness, where it > might prompt action. > > As Suslov points out, however, to make rapid decisions, the brain > often has to settle quickly on an interpretation without enough > information to be sure it is the correct one. Yet it must also > remain ready to take advantage of further data streaming in, > which may lead to a better interpretation. Consequently, he says, > there's just no way a well-functioning brain can entirely avoid > making these errors of interpretation. "The nature of the > processing algorithm makes mistakes inevitable." > > And that, he claims, also makes humour inevitable. He argues that > humour is the brain's way of dealing with such errors: a rapid > emotional response makes us aware of a mistake, and brings new > information into consciousness especially swiftly. "Its > biological function," says Suslov, "is to make brain operations > more efficient." We laugh as the brain squirms its way out of a > contradictory state. > > Suslov hasn't yet made a computer that laughs, but he has proposed > a specific computational model, based on a neural network, that > would mimic the information processing he describes, and > necessarily be prone to the same recognition errors > (www.arxiv.org/abs/0711.2058 ). Ultimately, he suggests, there > may be no reason why we won't be able to program computers to > tell and understand jokes . > > The idea is consistent with what we know about the brain, says > neuroscientist Peter Latham of University College London, but it > is not clear from Suslov's work why it should be humour that is > linked to the processing difficulty he describes. "There are lots > of positive emotions that might play the required role," he says. > And why, he wonders, if humour evolved to solve an internal > processing problem, does it involve an outward physical display, > such as laughter, that others can see? > > That characteristic of the humour response, according to biologist > David Sloan Wilson of Binghamton University in New York, suggests > it probably evolved in connection with social interactions. Human > laughter, he points out, appears to be closely linked to similar > behaviour that has important social roles for our primate > relatives. During social play, such as tickling and chasing, many > primate species display a particular facial expression, a "play > face", and often produce a panting vocalisation that many > biologists see as akin to laughter. > > There's also evidence that something very similar to humour and > laughter exists in non-primate species. Over the past decade, for > example, Jaak Panksepp of Washington State University in Pullman > and colleagues have shown that rats make frequent ultrasonic > noises similar to laughter during positive social interactions. > Researchers can even make rats laugh by tickling them on the nape > of the neck, an area to which rats themselves direct their > playful activities. Panksepp suggests that the rat's behaviour is > closely related to laughter in babies (Behavioural Brain Research > , vol 182, p 231). > > Laughter, Wilson points out, is also famously contagious. "People > are roughly 30 times more likely to laugh in the presence of > others than when they are by themselves," he says. > > All this evidence, Wilson suggests, makes a strong case that > humour evolved in association with social activity. This doesn't > mean that Suslov's idea is necessarily wrong, he says. "It could > be that humour evolved for one function, and was later co-opted > for another." > > For example, the emotional response involved in humour might have > arisen first as an aid to social organisation and bond-forming > among our distant ancestors, and then later, when the brain > evolved higher cerebral functions, such as language processing, > evolution may have hijacked the pre-existing emotional pathway > linked to humour. If so, humour could sometimes play a role much > as Suslov suggests, with the outward sounds we make, such as > laughter, merely a by-product of earlier evolution. > > Yet Suslov has some other problems to work out too. After all, we > don't always laugh when we misread a sentence, or misinterpret an > image. > > "This is the first real theoretical model I've seen proposed for > humour," says psychologist Daniel Levine of the University of > Texas, Arlington. "It's laudable for that. What is lacking is an > explanation of what is or isn't humour-producing. It's not the > case that every phrase that tricks the mind into an error is > funny." > > On the other hand, Suslov argues, the idea does explain quite a > lot about jokes, including why hackneyed jokes don't work, and > why the timing of a joke's delivery is so important. Both > situations fail to lure the brain into making the required > decision error, either because the brain recognises the joke, or > because it has enough time to correct the misinterpretation > before sending the correction into consciousness. > > So perhaps a computer that can understand and tell at least simple > jokes may not be too far away. The humour we see in other > primates and rats may only be a beginning. "Some people still > regard laughter as a uniquely human trait," says Panksepp, "but > the joke's on them."Joke in a box Mark Buchanan > > Computers already play chess and compose music. Igor Suslov of the > Kapitza Institute for Physical Problems in Moscow, Russia, thinks > one day they may also understand emotions. As a first step, he is > working towards a computer that can react to humour - at least to > simple jokes in which individual words switch their meanings as > the joke is understood. > > A computational system capable of understanding such jokes, he > suggests, has to be able to recognise meanings. It also requires > a mechanism enabling a subsequent improved recognition to > supersede the first. To accomplish this, Suslov envisions a > neural network of artificial elements, similar to biological > neurons. A network capable of reacting to humour requires a > sensory system that gathers information from outside and sends it > to a memory system, which can recognise patterns. When it does, > this system would send its result to a third network, > representing the computer's "consciousness". > > This network would then also link into a subnetwork of neurons > corresponding to the motor cortex. Improved recognition of an > incoming stimulus would trigger this cortex to kick off the > humour response, a mechanical reaction expunging the incorrect > interpretation and replacing it with the improved version - while > making some funny noises perhaps. Building such a system, Suslov > suggests, should be possible in a few years > (www.arxiv.org/abs/0711.2061 ). > > "This is a brave attempt to make a computer model of humour," says > Leonid Perlovsky, an expert in artificial intelligence at Harvard > University. "It is interesting to see even a first step toward > understanding humour in a mathematical way." > To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the subject unsubscribe. > > To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, > please visit the list home page at > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.i n > To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.i n To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
