Artificial Intelligence Jokes
It is incredibly hard to find good AI related jokes out there, so I started this collection here. If you know a great AI joke, please share it in the comments below.
Here some highlights from Yann LeCun's fun page:
- Deep Belief Nets actually believe deeply in Geoff Hinton.
- Most farmhouses are surrounded by nice fields. Geoff Hinton's farmhouse lies in a hyper-plain, surrounded by a mean field, and has kernels in la grange.
- The only kernel Geoff Hinton has ever used is a kernel of truth.
- Bayesians are the only people who can feel marginalized after being integrated.
- Shakespeare and Bayes are in a boat, fishing. Bayes is trying to figure out which net to cast when Shakespeare says: "loopy or not loopy? that is the question".
What do you think about AI safety issues?
Lawyer: AI misbehaving? Sue AI!
Nazi: Is AI of higher race? Then it's safe.
Commie: Is AI exploiting or being exploited? Unsafe in any case.
Socialist: Tax the AI to the grave! Will be safe there.
Catholic: If AI believes in God, it's safe.
Feminist: AI is a product of men's chauvinist genderophibic racism! Can't be safe!
LBGT activist: Safe... depends, what orientation does AI have?
Merkel: We'll give asylum to all AIs even if they want to kill us.
Juncker: AI will pay dearly if it attempts to humanxit.
Trump: MAIGA! Grab AI by her pussy.
Hillary: AI came, AI saw, we died.
Stalin: No AI, no problem.
Eurocrat: We've already created 3284 directives to define what AI is. Next 5324 directives will define what safe means.
Einstein: You cannot be more artificially intelligent than naturally stupid.
M.L.King: Forget about dreaming...
This video is so awkward, but I think it was supposed to be funny.
Question: What do you call a blonde who has dyed her hair brown?
Answer: Artificial intelligence.
In a post-apocalyptic world, when robots take over Earth and enslave humans, the robots designed a test to see which humans were useful and who were not. This test consisted of a short piece of text written by a human A and a robot B. Another robot C was given the task to discern this piece of text and identify which was written by human and which was written by the robot. If the robot C failed to identify, then the human was considered successful and the robot was considered a failure. This test was called "Anti-Turing test" *. The humans have inevitably failed this test consistently since time immemorial. Most robots, it seems, feel that human beings can never pass this test, while a handful of them still have hopes for their success.
* Some believe this was named as such with reverence for Turing, while some believe it is an inside joke amongst robots.
Human: What do we want!?
Computer: Natural language processing!
Human: When do we want it!?
Computer: When do we want what?
Q: How many AI people does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: At least 81.
The problem space group (5):
- One to define the goal state.
- One to define the operators.
- One to describe the universal problem solver.
- One to hack the production system.
- One to indicate how it is a model of human lightbulb-changing behaviour.
The logical formalism group (16):
- One to figure out how to describe lightbulb changing in first-order logic.
- One to figure out how to describe lightbulb changing in second-order logic.
- One to show the adequacy of FOL.
- One to show the inadequacy of FOL.
- One to show that lightbulb logic is non-monotonic.
- One to show that it isn’t non-monotonic.
- One to show how non-monotonic logic is incorporated in FOL.
- One to determine the bindings for the variables.
- One to show the completeness of the solution.
- One to show the consistency of the solution.
- One to show that the two just above are incoherent.
- One to hack a theorem prover for lightbulb resolution.
- One to suggest a parallel theory of lightbulb logic theorem proving.
- One to show that the parallel theory isn’t complete.
- One to indicate how it is a description of human lightbulb changing behaviour.
- One to call the electrician.
The statistical group (1):
- One to point out that, in the real world, a lightbulb is never “on” or “off”, but usually something in between.
The planning group (4):
- One to define STRIPS-style operators for lightbulb changing.
- One to show that linear planning is not adequate.
- One to show that nonlinear planning is adequate.
- One to show that people don’t plan; they simply react to lightbulbs.
The robotics group (10):
- One to build a vision system to recognize the dead bulb.
- One to build a vision system to locate a new bulb.
- One to figure out how to grasp the lightbulb without breaking it.
- One to figure out how to make a universal joint that will permit the hand to rotate 360+ degrees.
- One to figure out how to make the universal joint go the other way.
- One to figure out the arm solutions that will get the arm to the socket.
- One to organize the construction teams.
- One to hack the planning system.
- One to get Westinghouse to sponsor the research.
- One to indicate how the robot mimics human motor behaviour in lightbulb changing.
The knowledge engineering group (6):
- One to study electricians’ changing lightbulbs.
- One to arrange for the purchase of the lisp machines.
- One to assure the customer that this is a hard problem and that great accomplishments, in theory, will come from his support of this effort.
- The same can negotiate the project budget.
- One to study related research.
- One to indicate how it is a description of human lightbulb changing behaviour.
- One to call the Lisp hackers.
The Lisp hackers (14):
- One to bring up the chaos net.
- One to order the Chinese food
- One to adjust the microcode to properly reflect the group’s political beliefs.
- One to fix the compiler.
- One to make incompatible changes to the primitives.
- One to provide the Coke.
- One to re-hack the Lisp editor/debugger.
- One to re-hack the window package.
- Another to fix the compiler.
- One to convert the code to the non-upward compatible Lisp dialect.
- Another to re-hack the window package properly.
- One to flame on BUG-LISPM.
- Another to fix the microcode.
- One to write the fifteen lines of code required to change the lightbulb.
The Connectionist Group (6):
- One to claim that lightbulb changing can only be achieved through massive parallelism.
- One to build a backpropagation network to direct the robot arm.
- One to assign initial random weights to the connections in the network.
- One to train the network by showing it how to change a lightbulb (training shall consist of 500,000 repeated epochs).
- One to tell the media that the network learns “just like a human does”.
- One to compare the performance of the resulting system with that of traditional symbolic approaches (optional).
The Natural Language Group (5):
- One to collect sample utterances from the lightbulb domain.
- One to build an English understanding program for the lightbulb-changing robot.
- One to build a speech recognition system.
- One to tell lightbulb jokes to the robot in between bulb-changing tasks.
- One to build a language generation component so that the robot can make up its own lightbulb jokes.
The Learning Group (4):
- One to collect twenty light bulbs
- One to collect twenty “near misses”
- One to write a concept learning program that learns to identify lightbulbs
- One to show that the program found a local maximum in the space of lightbulb descriptions
The Game-Playing Group (5):
- One to design a two-player game tree with the robot as one player and the lightbulb as the other
- One to write a minimax search algorithm that assumes optimal play on the part of the lightbulb
- One to build special-purpose hardware to enable 24-ply search
- One to enter the robot in a human lightbulb-changing tournament
- One to state categorically that lightbulb changing is “no longer considered AI”
The Psychological group (5):
- One to build an apparatus which will time lightbulb changing performance.
- One to gather and run subjects.
- One to mathematically model the behaviour.
- One to call the expert systems group.
- One to adjust the resulting system, so that it drops the right number of bulbs.