Philosophy Talk

What does it mean to say that "humour is educated insolence"? Well, in

two key-words, Aristotle says it all. The first, "educated", does not
mean that humor can only arise from a formal education, rather that
humor is a knowledge-based process. To make fun of the world or its
occupants, one needs to exploit knowledge, and the richer this
knowledge, the more nuanced and sophisticated the humor can be. To a
computationalist, this means that knowledge-representation is a
foundational element of a theory of humor. Theorists in Artificial
Intelligence have studied this problem for five decades now, to produce
a host of representation schemes and reasoning mechanisms for those
schemes. Some ambitious projects, like the Cyc project in Austin, aim to
use these schemes and mechanisms to represent the totality of
common-sense knowledge possessed by a typical human. While I have my
doubts about Cyc as a representation for computational humor (I worked
on the project for a year) I believe that the "knowledge-bottleneck", as
Cyc's guiding svengali Doug Lenat describes it, is a crucial issue in
humor research: no knowledge, no humor, and no humor generation.

The second word, "insolence", is just as important, as it describes how
one should use all this knowledge to understand and produce humor. One
might be tempted here to see insolence as a form of insulting behavior,
and thus view humor as an expression of superiority on the part of the
comic. This general theory, called the superiority theory of humor,
views humor as aggressively directional, so that every joke has a target
or a butt. However, insolence is a more general idea, and refers to a
subversive attitude not just toward other people (as some humor is
overtly aggressive) but toward situations, beliefs and knowledge itself.
Personally, I am inclined to see in humor the same kind of subversive
behavior we see in scientific Gedanken or thought experiments. In such
experiments, a scientist proposes a simple experiment that requires no

apparatus, but which can instead be performed in the laboratory of the
mind. Galileo and Einstein were both masters of the Gedanken experiment,
using them to devastating effect to persuade people of the folly of
believing in conventional scientific wisdom. Once this wisdom is shown
by the experiment to lead to ridiculous situations, the stage is cleared
for a new theory to arise.  As such, I see many jokes as having the
character of a compressed thought experiment. Try this one on for size:

"If God wanted us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made animals out
of meat!".

Which ideas are subverted here, Vegetarian, Animal or Meat? The answer
appears to be all three, for we seem to be presented with three quite
exceptional objects that simultaneously subvert three different
categories. First we are directed to imagine an exceptional member of
the Animal category, the animal as meat machine, from which all
non-utilitarian aspects are divorced; if such an animal were not
sentient, there could be no moral basis for vegetarianism. Secondly, we
are asked to imagine an exceptional kind of meat, one that possesses all
the biological properties of conventional meat yet one that may not
derive from an animal source. Thirdly, we are directed to imagine an
exceptional kind of Vegetarian, one that would eat meat if did not
derive from an animal source. All three subversions together lead to a
subversion of the category Vegetarianism, for what moral force would
this lifestyle preserve if vegetarians could freely eat meat yet remain
a vegetarian? The above joke really is a highly compressed thought
experiment, since it attempts to undermine the conventional wisdom that
vegetarianism is a morally superior way of life, while justifying a
moral laissez faire on the part of the meat-eaters. Some of the most
effective uses of subversion aim for a more visceral effect, as in

"Eating is over-rated. Remember, food is just sh*t waiting to happen".

When most people hear that computer scientists are trying to model humor
processes on  a computer, their reactions typically range from the "why
bother" (or "don't expect tenure") to "it's clearly impossible". As a
topic of computational research, humor seems both wasteful and futile;
even it succeeds, do we really need a computer with a sense of humor?
Those people that already believe that computers are too smart for them
would surely not be pleased to think that their computers are also
laughing at them. It doesn't help, of course, that the archetype of
intelligent computers in pop-culture is HAL from 2001, who murdered his
crew. When I worked at Cyc, my boss looked forward to the day that Cyc
would exhibit language capabilities like HAL, but presumably (and I
can't be sure) he wasn't looking forward to Cyc murdering me and my
co-workers.

More seriously, few computer scientists work on humor as their main
topic of research, and for most, like myself, it is an interesting (but
relevant) side-line. For one, is not an entirely wise career choice.
I've met graduate students at humor conferences (yes, they exist, but
they can be very dry indeed) who are there against the advice of their
supervisors, who suggest it is better to study these topics after tenure
has been secured (this places humor research in the same scientific
category as paranormal studies!). Second, and more realistically, there
are so many problems to do with general human intelligence and language
competence that must be solved first before we can even begin to think
about genuinely humorous computers. The state of the art in
computer-generated humor is still in the school-yard, intellectually
speaking. Computers can do a very good job of generating puns, and even
humorous acronyms (such as CIA = Central Incompetence Agency, to pick

one at random). To understand and generate truly conceptual humor, where
ideas rather than just words are manipulated, requires that we first
understand other aspects of creative language use. To my mind, the most
important aspect of human language is metaphor. This is the primary
focus of my research (though its only slightly more respectable than
humor in computer science circles), since metaphor underpins our ability
to stretch the conventions of language and describe people and ideas in
strikingly novel ways. You don't need to read poetry to encounter the
need to process metaphors. Almost all natural language texts are
permeated with metaphors, from the Bible to the Wall Street Journal, so
there is a real financial imperative to make substantial engineering
progress on this topic. Once our computers can understand and produce
metaphors, they will possess the educational requirement of Aristotle's
theory. Then it will be a matter of using this education for insolent
purposes. Choice insults like "Baldrick, your family tree has Dutch Elm
disease" are just around the corner.

For those readers interested in knowing more about computational
approaches to metaphor, and indirectly, humor, please do visit my
group's research web-site at: afflatus.ucd.ie. (btw: "Afflatus" is not a
bowel-complaint, but a pretentious term for the "creative urge" foisted
upon our server by a departing graduate student). Alternatively, you can
contact me directly at tony.veale@UCD.ie.

Tony Veale is a computer scientist at University College Dublin. He's also our guest on today's show on humor.