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 total fabrications (a.k.a. mental masturbation).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor
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 ways, it was brave of you to pursue this idea, & the results are
fascinating. You see, there is one central thing you need in order to
write a joke. (Have you ever tried it? You must presumably in some
respect). You can't just logically, formulaically analyse those jokes -
the common ingredients of, say, the lightbulb jokes. When you write
something - even some logical extension, say, re how many plumbers it
takes to change a light bulb - the joke *has to strike you as funny." You
have to laugh. It's the only way to test the joke.
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.
But what makes you laugh? The common ingredient of humour is human error.
We laugh at humans making mistakes - mistakes that were/are preventable.
People having their head stuck snootily in the air, and so falling on
banana skins. Mrs Malaprop mispronouncing, misconstruing big words while
trying to look clever, and refusing to admit her ignorance. And we laugh
because we can personally identify, because we've made those kinds of
mistakes. They are a fundamental and continuous part of our lives.(How
will your AGI identify?)
So are AGI-ers *heroic* figures trying to be/produce giants, or are they
*comic* figures, like Don Quixote, who are in fact tilting at windmills,
and refusing even to check whether those windmill arms actually belong to
giants?
There isn't a purely logicomathematical way to decide that. It takes an
artistic as well as a scientific mentality involving not just whole
different parts of your brain, but different faculties and sensibilities -
all v. real, and not reducible to logic and maths. When you deal with AGI
problems - like the problem of AGI itself - you need them.
(You may think this all esoteric, but in fact, you need all those same
faculties to understand everything that is precious to you - the universe/
world/ society/ atoms/ genes / machines - & even logic & maths. But more
of that another time).
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
