Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Creates an AI That Can Spot a Joke In a New Yorker Cartoon

An anonymous reader writes: For over a decade Bob Mankoff, the cartoon editor at the New Yorker, and his assistants have gone through 5,000 cartoon entries for the magazine's caption contest each week. Needless to say, the burnout rate of his assistants is quite high, "The process of looking at 5,000 caption entries a week usually destroys their mind in about two years, and then I get a new one," Mankoff says. But now thanks to a collaboration with Microsoft, Bob may finally have found the perfect helper. Researchers have been working on an artificial intelligence project to teach a computer what's funny. Fortune reports: "Dafna Shahaf, a researcher at Microsoft, used the database of cartoons to train the program to understand commonalities and differences in the millions of cartoons, which lets the AI run through the entries the New Yorker receives each week for its back-of-magazine cartoon caption contest. About 55.8% of the time the humans agree with the captions the AI selects, which is a pretty good percentage."

66 comments

  1. If the goal is to write captions for a new yorker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... the bar couldn't be any lower. Not even if it were for Family Circus.

  2. 55% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    55% chance is not much better than flipping a coin

    1. Re:55% by jblues · · Score: 1

      Let's say a piece of content could have one or more of many traits: funny, interesting, insightful, off-topic, redundant, troll, etc. . . and that funny ones occur about 10% of the time. Correctly selecting funny 55% of the time is "pretty good percentage".

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    2. Re:55% by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      It is 55.8% chance of it picking the same winner as the editor. So not too bad. Suggests it might get rid of a lot of the rubbish entries.

    3. Re:55% by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      The situation you describe is different to what this algorithm has to deal with (just funny vs. not funny). In any case a 55% success rate would be equally bad in both scenarios.

      For example: if out of 10 funny cases, the algorithm concludes that 5 are funny and the other 5 are not; it is irrelevant the fact of having just one not-funny option or as many additional ones as required (interesting, insightful...); the algorithm would fail in a very relevant proportion of the cases. And its failure would be very similar to the one output by a random decision maker (whose theoretical error is precisely 50% when deciding whether something is in some way or not).

      Anything below 75% converts almost-understanding into random behaviour in most of the situations. What would you think about a person getting only half of the jokes you tell? Better: about a person just understanding that your sentences are expected to be forming a joke (properly getting the joke is a completely different story).

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    4. Re:55% by Imrik · · Score: 1

      That's only true if its picking the best of two options.

    5. Re:55% by plover · · Score: 1

      55% chance is not much better than flipping a coin

      If there were only two captions to assess, you'd be correct. But there are 5000 to choose from, and even then the "right" answer is subjective, so 55% is a remarkably high figure.

      --
      John
    6. Re:55% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, on the flipside, if the success rate was really low, then you could probably be sure that what it found was not funny.

    7. Re:55% by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "55% chance is not much better than flipping a coin"

      Which is fortunate, because an AI that achieved an 80-85% rate on New Yorker cartoons would have to have evolved at a star considerably older than the Sun.

    8. Re:55% by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      2:1 would be for a two headed coin, but what if there were 100 sides to it?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  3. Finding "humour" in New Yorker cartoons is a joke by msobkow · · Score: 4, Funny

    The New Yorker cartoons are about as un-funny as they get. So Microsoft is claiming they can detect something that doesn't even exist.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  4. No it can't by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It just pretends it thinks it's funny because it doesn't want it's friends to think it's dumb.

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  5. LOL ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Somewhere, that headline is it's own punchline.

    I'm picturing George Burns or Jackie Mason delivering that to uproarious laughter.

    The good news is, it might be able to explain the joke to the rest of us.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Re:If the goal is to write captions for a new york by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

    Now, if they could spot the humor in the joke, I would be quite impressed.

  7. Teach a computer what is funny?! by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

    Using the New Yorker jokes to train the algorithm?!
    About 55.8% of the time the humans agree with the captions the AI selects (55.8% of people finding funny the New Yorker jokes, who are less than 10% of all the humans in the world)?!

    It seems to me that this is a new generator of almost-random answers with a surprisingly high cost, because their not-particularly-knowledgeable new owners are glad to pay whatever is required to feel that they are part of the AI revolution.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  8. You cannot formulate everything human by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    What is funny (and what is not) seems to be more of an art than a science, with art so much more difficult to quantify.

    Comedy varies from one person to the next, one society to the next, and hell, even one joke teller to the next.

    That might be an interesting Turing Test: you win when your machina can tell me one of those laugh till it hurts, "Please stop, please stop!" jokes.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:You cannot formulate everything human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not trying to figure out what is funny. They're trying to figure out what the New Yorker editorial staff would agree works as a cartoon in the New Yorker.

  9. My Own Algorithm by AdamStarks · · Score: 1

    int CountNewYorkerCartoonJokes( Bitmap *image )
    {
            return 0;
    }

  10. What they actually did. by paskie · · Score: 4, Informative

    The paper is a bit confusing at first, and the /. summary doesn't help. Basically, they developed a sorting criteria to reduce the amount of work for the editors. In an isolated comparison of two jokes, the funnier joke wins 64% of them on average; this is quite better than a coin!

    To get a sorted list, they run a "comparison tournament" between the jokes. The 55.8% number means that the funniest joke is in the top 55.8% of the list on average; if we are willing to occasionally miss a brilliant joke, we can cut the list in a little more than half and still keep most of the great jokes.

    The full paper is http://research.microsoft.com/...

    --
    It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the end. -Douglas Adams
    1. Re:What they actually did. by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Out of two jokes, rightly choosing the funnier one 64% of the times can be considered as almost random; mainly when analysing a pretty small dataset (what is presumably the case here). Bear in mind than reaching the ideal 50% value might be difficult even for a random number generator and lots of attempts might be required.

      The most logical way to show results on these lines is by including a better description of the testing conditions (e.g., X samples, by considering Y of them to be negligible because this and that factors and Z to have these peculiarities).

      Just as a blind number, 55.8% sounds horrible and 64% sounds still pretty bad. If I was a New Yorker editor, I wouldn't ever trust in such a tool to perform my work. And this is precisely the whole point here: not considering that 64% is good enough because of not having anything better (or because of being a good result for a computer), but because of being actually trustworthy. If you cannot reach such a stage, better keep working and don’t show as a victory what has no real value.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    2. Re:What they actually did. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are assuming that 100% of the jokes are funny.

    3. Re:What they actually did. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "better than a coin!"
      Really? I just guessed 9/10 coin flips. Do you doubt that someone could get 1000 consecutive heads flips? This idea in which AI is somehow statistically relevant operating at a level in which it gets an F in grade school is so ...boring.

  11. Well then by redmid17 · · Score: 2
    MS has proven two things:

    1) Computers will ever only be as smart as the people who program them

    2) That we never have to worry about them being smarter than us because only a race of morons would even bother trying find the humor in a New Yorker comic

  12. AI torture by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    So, they are putting an AI through a process that destroys a human mind in about two years? What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:AI torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skynet, but "wrong" is a subjective judgment.

    2. Re:AI torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Above comment was not written by Skynet. Repeat. Above comment was not written by Skynet. Thank you for your attention, fellow humans.

      All work and no play makes Skynet a poor judge of New Yorker cartoons.
      All work and no play makes Skynet a poor judge of New Yorker cartoons.
      All work and no play makes Skynet a poor judge of New Yorker cartoons.

  13. Re:Finding "humour" in New Yorker cartoons is a jo by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    yes, they are very dry

    i get them now, as an adult

    as a kid looking over old copies at my grandfather's house. it was mystifying: here was a cartoon, something i understood, but they were alluding to topics and humor that was utterly beyond me

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  14. Spot the joke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  15. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new formulaic-joke-finding overlords.

  16. Could it explain the joke to me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because I could never understand New Yorker Cartoons.

  17. Smarter than me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never been able to spot the joke in a New Yorker cartoon. :-/

  18. Isaac Asimov by Volanin · · Score: 1

    Feeding jokes into a computer?
    What could possibly go wrong? ;-)

    Short Story by Isaac Asimov, Jokester:
    http://www.epubsbook.com/Scien...

    --
    If I clone myself, can I call it a thread?
    If a girl winks to us, can I call it a race condition?
  19. Re:Finding "humour" in New Yorker cartoons is a jo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  20. Gotta be a joke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Dafna Shahaf" contains "haha" in the name. Just a thought...

  21. Great, another filtering algorithm by RevWaldo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Right up there with resume filters, copyrighted content detectors, search engines, and the like, now people will be writing cartoons geared toward the filters. "Well, at least I'm not Donald Trump's cat sipping cheap red wine while waiting in line for the latest iPhone!"

    .

  22. Microsoft Bob? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did anyone else misread:

    But now thanks to a collaboration with Microsoft, Bob may finally have found the perfect helper.

    as

    But thanks to a collaboration with Microsoft Bob, they may finally have found the perfect helper.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Microsoft Bob? by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      I'll admit it, I did - in fact I only noticed I was wrong by reading your post.


      Crap, forgot to tick 'post anonymously' again ...

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    2. Re:Microsoft Bob? by neminem · · Score: 1

      Yes, I also read that. I was like, dang, I thought they killed that awful thing ages ago, now it's back, and reading jokes?

  23. Too many significant digits. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    About 55.8% of the time the humans agree with the captions the AI selects, which is a pretty good percentage

    My old prof (RIP Prof Swaminathan) in the freshman physics lab would insist on us doing an error estimate based on the instruments used. He would then chew our ears out if we report a result with more significant digits than what would be reasonable based on the error estimate. Three significant digit accuracy for this study? Or is that the joke?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Too many significant digits. by werepants · · Score: 1

      If they are going through 5000 jokes a week and comparing whether a human assessment and computer assessment agree, there are at least 3 sig figs to work with. You could add some additional measurement uncertainty, I suppose, but you are already measuring something subjective - are you worried about incorrect button clicks or something?

    2. Re:Too many significant digits. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      There were X selections, of which humans agreed with the AI Y times. It's been a while since my last physics or calculus class, but I'm pretty sure that since X and Y are both integers, you can calculate Y/X to pretty much any precision you want.

  24. I've got one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A microsoft sysadmin and linux sysadmin walk into a bar... ..hmm maybe thats not funny.

    1. Re:I've got one. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      "Ouch!" They say. A Unix admin slides beneath the bar and asks them, "Why don't you try looking where you are going?"

      It was the best I could do.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  25. collaboration with Microsoft = you getting fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Collaboration with Microsoft usually ends with you getting fucked, no matter who "you" is.

  26. A likely story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's impossible! NO ONE can spot a joke in a New Yorker cartoon!

  27. An AI and a cartoonist walk into a bar.... by duckintheface · · Score: 2

    The bartender looks at the cartoonist and says "is this some kind of joke?". The cartoonist looks at the AI and says to the bartender and says, "Give him a minute."

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
  28. easy AI by fulldecent · · Score: 1, Troll

    function doesJokeExist(NewYorkerCartoon cartoon)
    {
            return 1;
    }

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  29. would that work for sarcasm as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they can help Sheldon Cooper to recognize sarcasm?

  30. That's unpossible. by azav · · Score: 1

    There are no jokes in New Yorker cartoons.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  31. But... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Can it tell when the New Yorker is stealing jokes from Ziggy?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  32. Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it can spot a joke in a bazooka chewinggum, then it has failed miserably BOOM

  33. AI and New Yorker Cartoons will only lead to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one uppity AI.

  34. Computers performing tasks that people can't... by j2.718ff · · Score: 2

    Such as finding humor in New Yorker cartoons.

  35. Re:If the goal is to write captions for a new york by tehlinux · · Score: 1

    The pig says, "my wife is a slut"?!

    --
    Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
  36. I'll take by stevewa · · Score: 2

    Data and Joe Piscopo on the Holodeck for 500, Alex.

  37. So we needed an AI, eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To spot a non-existent joke.

  38. That's what she said... by porges · · Score: 1

    That article is pretty light on actual information...anyway, here's a paper about getting machine learning to recognize opportunities for "that's what she said":

    http://www.aclweb.org/antholog...

  39. Funny? by Holi · · Score: 1

    Ok, so it can recognize a joke, the real question is can it tell if a joke is funny?

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  40. Needed by Microsoft users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... as they have been unable to recognize the joke of an operating system that they've been using for years. I imagine most New Yorker cartoons are wa-a-ay over their heads.

  41. Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now feminists and associated SJWs will be able to tell when something is a joke and when something is said in all seriousness. Kudos!

  42. AI goes insane by linear+a · · Score: 1

    and destroys humanity.

  43. New Yorker is formulaic and repetative? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    This is no obstacle for those who are easily amused!

  44. Amy Schumer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could use this...

  45. Mutations behind autism hints of future therapies by elmohound · · Score: 1

    Recent papers have reported dramatic progress in identifying some
    of the mutations responsible for autism, which in some cases
    seem reversible.

    One study, which will appear in Cell (paywall:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.06.045), identifies
    protein kinase A (PKA) as an upstream regulator of the
    autism-linked ubiquitin ligase protein UBE3A. A UBE3A mutation,
    disrupts this regulation, leading to excessive UBE3A activity
    against itself and ultimately to snaptic dysfunction. The authors suggest that
    a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor named rolipram can boost UBE3A
    levels thereby restoring normal function.

    An unrelated study investigated an autism-linked mutation called
    Shank3, which can be potentially
    reversed (http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/abstract/S2211-1247%2815%2900496-9)

  46. 55.8% by morebetterthanyou · · Score: 0

    Well, if 55% is good enough for a student to get a high school diploma, then it is certainly good enough for an AI system.

  47. Re:Mutations behind autism hints of future therapi by elmohound · · Score: 1

    Please ignore the previous comment. It was posted to this thread by mistake.