= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on [Link] AI advances: computers can be almost as funny as people - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (17)
In other words, the paper's authors consider funny 16% of random combinations of X, Y, and Z inserted into the pattern of "I like my X like l like my Y, Z".
No, the completely random baseline generated funny jokes 3.7% of the time.
They get bonus points for their metrics of LOcal Log-likelihood (aka LOL-likelihood) and Rank OF Likelihood (aka ROFL).
They also get demerits for not discussing the error bars on their estimates given that they had only five testers.
I actually quite like the idea of completely random gags in this formula. I feel like I might even prefer them to the lame ones given by the ostensibly smarter algorithm. It could be a rich vein of absurdist, non-sequitur laughs.
I think that many nonsequitor jokes are funny more by targeted nonsequitorness than by randomness.