13 ms·
Don’t want to diminish ChatGPT, it’s very impressive, but the first joke analysis misses the fact that the guy says he quit drinking and then still drinks 2 bee
by nyc_pizzadev 4y ago
Don’t want to diminish ChatGPT, it’s very impressive, but the first joke analysis misses the fact that the guy says he quit drinking and then still drinks 2 beers.
- secondcoming 4y agoYes, the author misses the joke too. Maybe the author is also a ChatGBT bot used to talk up the abilities of ChatGPT.
- tonmoy 4y agoUnderstanding joke is one of the most difficult things someone can ask an AI to do. Even humans are unable to explain what makes a joke “funny”. The fact that ChatGPT can basically BS it’s way through an explanation is actually impressive (and ironically kinda funny)
- picozeta 4y agoBut it does not understand anything here, see my other comment. It completely dodges the question and answers "It's funny because you told me it's a joke and jokes are funny and have a punchline in the end."
- mortehu 4y agoI don't think you understood the comment you're replying to, but are doing some kind of pattern matching.
- picozeta 4y agoMaybe. But human's pattern match capabilities regarding jokes seem to still be on another level compared to the attempts this LLM makes.
- coldtea 4y agoThe point it, he does it much much better than ChatGPT, to the point that his understanding of the comment appears seamless, whereas ChatGPT's is crude and mechanic in comparison... So, that's neither here, nor there - except if you believe that the parent's argument was that ChatGPT doesn't have a soul and he has, as opposed to the relative competence of their respective patter matching and "mind" computations...
- mortehu 4y agoI'm just referring to the fact that they said "But it does not understand anything here" even though the parent comment made no such claim. The parent was saying ChatGPT made a bullshit answer that even tricked OP into thinking there was understanding.
- mewpmewp2 4y agoI think the disagreement is about the fact that it would be considered specifically impressive. It doesn't seem more impressive than everything else ChatGPT does when it repeats a boilerplate and tries to find parts of a joke using probabilistic weights, or tries to categorise the joke into either puns or something else.
- the_af 4y agoWell, it does try to identify the setup, punchline, and what the subversion of expectations is. It does provide an (often wrongheaded) explanation of what's being subverted. I find that impressive.
- andsoitis 4y agoSetup is in the beginning. Punchline is in the end. Subversion of expectations is a standard template. But, like you point out, it fails to grasp the subversion.
- dsr_ 4y agoThe fact is that ChatGPT never emits anything other than bullshit. The surprising thing is how much of human conversation is successfully approximated. The bullshit fails when we ask the software to attempt to perform inductive or deductive logic or to derive information from a theory of mind.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
- the_af 4y agoChatGPT emits bullshit, but wouldn't we fault most high schoolers with the same thing in their homework essays? ;)
- mewpmewp2 4y agoHigh schoolers and even children can frequently understand humour and jokes, even come up with some. They might miss some of the jokes proposed by OP, but they would still have that X factor, that the AI doesn't have.
- the_af 4y agoOh, agreed, GPT doesn't "get" humor the way even a child can. What I meant is that GPT's attempts at bullshitting its way through a pseudoanswer looks a lot like what a highschooler (who also doesn't understand the topic) would attempt. That alone is amusing enough to me!
- nkrisc 4y ago> Even humans are unable to explain what makes a joke “funny”. I think many comedians can tell you why a joke is funny. They know, many of them spend their entire career crafting jokes and refining them to be funny. It’s just not funny when they tell you why. Even so I think it still is more art than science. A lot of what also makes a joke funny or not is the delivery and who’s telling it. I think a lot of Norm MacDonald’s long, rambling jokes, for instance, wouldn’t be funny at all if most other people told them (and some people will say they’re not funny even when he told them).
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
- beagle3 4y agoReminds me of “Coupling” - a brilliant British TV sitcom. It is incredibly funny. The US version had the same text, with minor changes to account for e.g. the different way to call back to the last incoming call on a landline. The US version had reasonably good actors. But … somehow, it was just not funny.
- nkrisc 4y agoI think in this kind of thing the cultural context is important and provides necessary components of the humor that are critical to the jokes, but not part of the script. It’s why the American version of the Office couldn’t just be directly transplanted. It had to be re-rewritten for the American cultural context. I think if you took the script for Peep Show, for example, and set it in the US with American actors it would probably be pretty bad.
- mewpmewp2 4y agoI think all jokes are explainable why they are funny to be honest. I find it odd when people say that explaining a joke removes the funny part. Sure, it can in some cases, but I think it's just a generic thing to say rather than what actually is the case. Sometimes a joke is so clever, that you don't get it at first, but then someone explains it and you appreciate how clever the joke was, which is still a positive feeling and in addition can make you laugh retroactively.
- dslowell 4y agoWhat's really interesting to me is how easy it is to talk to it conversationally and get an appropriate response. Inspired by this post, for instance, I just now tried asking it to explain the joke: "Two men walk into a bar, the third man ducks." It's initial response was nonsense: > The joke is funny because it relies on a play on words and a surprise ending. The first two lines set up the expectation that something is going to happen to the two men who are walking into the bar, but the punchline subverts that expectation by introducing a third man who ducks, which is a unexpected and humorous twist. I asked what wordplay was involved, and it told me this: > The word play in the joke involves the use of the word "walk" in the first two lines and the word "duck" in the punchline. In the first two lines, "walk" is used in the literal sense, as in moving forward on foot. However, in the punchline, "duck" is used in the sense of avoiding or evading something, rather than its literal meaning of a type of bird. This sudden shift in the meaning of the word "duck" is what creates the surprise and humor in the joke. More nonsense. But then I told it "It's actually the word "bar" that's being used in the wordplay. The word "duck" there just means evading something" and asked it to explain the joke again, and it returned this: > In the first two lines of the joke, "walk into a bar" is used in the literal sense, as in two men entering a place where drinks are served. However, in the punchline, "bar" is used in the sense of a barrier or obstacle, rather than its literal meaning of a type of establishment. The punchline introduces a third man who "ducks" under the perceived obstacle, which is a unexpected and humorous twist. The joke also relies on the idea that walking into a bar is a common and mundane activity, so the unexpected ending adds a element of absurdity to the joke. Though the initial response was nonsense, talking to it as if it were a human and giving it a limited hint (telling it the wordplay involved "bar" and not "duck") was enough for it to give the correct answer. I think this is probably why so many people say they're underwhelmed. A lot of the initial responses to simplistic questions aren't so interesting. But the degree to which it is able to correctly adapt and respond to conversational input is fairly astounding.
- evandale 4y agoHow did it give the correct answer? >In the first two lines of the joke, "walk into a bar" is used in the literal sense, as in two men entering a place where drinks are served. However, in the punchline, "bar" is used in the sense of a barrier or obstacle, rather than its literal meaning of a type of establishment. The literal sense of walking into a bar isn't walking into a drinking establishment, it's walking into a actual bar. The punchline reveals the first 2 walked into a bar and the third one avoided it, no?
- sorokod 4y agoRight, in "Three Pints of Guinness" it is the self referential aspect that made me laugh. I does look like ChatGPT would have provided the same explanation if the punchline was "Oh, my brothers are fine but the Australian just quit drinking."
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoIn my telling, the man explains his spouse demanded he quit drinking. Which adds that clever subversion element to the punchline.
- mannykannot 4y agoThe difficulty these models have in recognizing contradictions seems to be something of a 'tell' distinguishing their responses from plausibly human-spoken ones. I don't think this is surprising, given the way they are trained.
- xg15 4y agoYeah, for the first example, ChatGPT basically made a generic summary of the joke, then an explanation why jokes are funny in general and then tacked a "and that's why this joke is funny" on the end. It sounded more like a logical reduction like "This is a joke. Jokes are funny because they subvert expectations. Therefore this joke is funny because it subverts expectations." than an actual explanation of the punchline.
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoThat's my impression of ChatGPT. It vomits out a half-page of boilerplate about any subject before getting to any real insight.
- brookst 4y agoTo be fair, it was trained on a corpus that includes a ton of SEO-corrupted websites that do just this. Blame Google for rewarding bread recipes that start with thousands of words about why people like bread.
- vlunkr 4y agoI’ve wondered if that was the case based on my experience. Every response is 80% too long, just like the real internet. Yay?
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoI've guessed it's the nature of the beast. Without context it's hard to gauge what part of the question is interesting to the reader. So it errs on the side of completeness.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pcthrowaway 4y agoI asked it "What's an easy recipe to make bread" and it gave me a pretty direct answer, so that's not it: Here is a simple recipe for homemade bread: Ingredients: - 3 cups all-purpose flour - 1 tablespoon sugar - 1 teaspoon salt - 1 packet (2 1/4 teaspoons) active dry yeast - 1 cup warm water - 2 tablespoons butter, melted Instructions: - In a large mixing bowl, combine the flour, sugar, salt, and yeast. Mix well. - Add the warm water and melted butter to the dry ingredients and mix until a dough forms. - Knead the dough for about 5-10 minutes until it becomes smooth and elastic. - Place the dough in a lightly greased bowl, cover it with a towel, and set it aside in a warm place to rise for about 1 hour or until it has doubled in size. - Punch down the dough and shape it into a loaf. Place the loaf in a greased 9x5-inch loaf pan. - Cover the pan with a towel and let the dough rise again for about 30 minutes. - Preheat your oven to 350°F (175°C). - Bake the bread for 30-35 minutes or until it is golden brown on top. - Remove the bread from the oven and let it cool in the pan for a few minutes before removing it and slicing it. Enjoy! I hope you find this recipe helpful! Let me know if you have any questions.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- BurningFrog 4y agoWell, it gets the simple laugh, but misses the deep joke.
- dclowd9901 4y agoYeah. I’ve seen a lot of these exchanges with chat gpt. Now what I’d like to see is someone talking to a real person with the same prompts and comparing the answers. I think the difference would be pretty stark, and we’ll just realize that chat gpt, so far, is just a wordy dumb dumb.
- coldtea 4y agoAll the jokes analyses it makes miss aspects of the jokes. It's like seeing someone "chat in Chinese" by using a rulebook with instructions to give answers to incoming questions, without actually speaking Chinese himself...