Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

The Theater Stage as Laboratory: Review of Real-Time Comedy LLM Systems for Live Performance

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that computational humor should be judged in live performance, in front of real audiences, under real-time constraints, with improvised comedy as the ideal test substrate.

desk verdict A useful survey and a defensible position that overreaches in its abstract: the live-performance examples do not isolate the AI's comedic contribution, but the paper's own creativity-support framing is more honest and worth engaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08474 v1 pith:MTXWGLEX submitted 2025-01-14 cs.CL

Piotr Wojciech Mirowski , Boyd Branch , Kory Wallace Mathewson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords computationalhumorliveperformanceimprovisationaltheaterlargelanguagemodelshuman-AIcollaborationcomedyevaluationaudiencefeedbackTuringtest
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This position paper argues that the best way to know whether an AI system is funny is to put it on stage in front of a live audience and let it work under real-time pressure. It reviews recent AI-comedy performances—robots delivering jokes, human improvisers fed lines by language models, adversarial human-versus-AI shows, and virtual-reality performances—and identifies three recurring challenges: machine embodiment and anthropomorphism, comedic timing and audience interaction, and making sense of absurd AI-generated text. The authors claim that these challenges make live improvised comedy an ideal testbed, because paying audiences bring realistic expectations, performers can fold real-time feedback into the show, and the improv tradition of 'celebrating failure' creates a safe environment for testing AI. If the paper is right, computational humor research should shift from static text and crowdsourced ratings toward live performance, and AI comedy tools should be designed as creativity-support collaborators for human comedians rather than autonomous joke machines.

What carries the argument

The paper's central object is the live improvisational comedy show staged as an experimental setting, and its concrete working unit is the 'Cyborg' performer: a human actor who receives real-time AI-generated lines through an earpiece or augmented-reality glasses and must deliver them with comedic timing to a live audience. This setup couples a language model to a human body and to an audience, which forces the three challenges the paper discusses—embodiment, timing, and interpretation—into view at once. In many of the shows reviewed, a second human 'writer's room' curator selects which AI lines reach the performer, adding another layer of human interpretation on top of the model output.

What would settle it

Take a fixed set of AI-written jokes and have the same comedian deliver them to a live audience while a separate group rates the same jokes as plain text, with independent judges scoring both. If live laughter and ratings track the performer's timing and delivery rather than the joke text, the claim that live performance cleanly measures the AI's comedic quality loses support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that AI comedy should be evaluated live, in front of audiences sharing physical or online spaces, under real-time constraints, and that improvised comedy is the perfect substrate for deploying and assessing computational humor systems. The paper grounds this claim in a survey of AI-infused shows, from robot standup and human-machine improv troupes to adversarial comedy battles and deep-fake games, and organizes the open questions into three groups: embodiment and anthropomorphism, comedic timing and audience interaction, and human interpretation of seemingly absurd AI output. It then argues that these live constraints reshape methodology: any evaluation method must work around real audiences and performance spaces, and it concludes that the right relationship between comedians and AI tools is collaborative, positioning the AI as a creativity support tool rather than a replacement performer.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that a live audience's response measures the AI system's comedic quality, even though the paper itself concedes that audiences may be reacting to the novelty of the show's premise or to the human performer's delivery.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Evaluation of AI humor should move from static text ratings and crowdsourced surveys toward live performances with real-time audience feedback.
  • Metrics for AI comedy must include timing, audience engagement, and performer experience, not just whether the words are funny.
  • Computational humor systems are best treated as creativity support tools for human comedians, not as autonomous comedians.
  • The comedy Turing test will not cleanly separate human from machine as language models improve, because human performers can imitate AI and fool audiences.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If live performance becomes the standard testbed, the field would benefit from a portable measurement kit—laughter sensing, performer surveys, and audience polls—so different shows can be compared across venues.
  • The same 'safe failure' culture of improv could make live co-creation a general test for other real-time generative AI, such as music improvisation or interactive game dialogue, not just humor.
  • Adopting the paper's framing would imply that decontextualized joke datasets become less decisive for progress, because the timing and social context that matter most are absent from them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This position paper reviews recent work at the intersection of computational humor generation and live performance, drawing mostly on the authors' own productions (Improbotics, HumanMachine, Dramatron-related shows) and a handful of external projects. It argues that AI comedy systems should be evaluated live, in front of audiences, under real-time constraints, and that improvised comedy is the ideal substrate for such evaluation. The paper organizes the field into three challenge areas: embodiment and anthropomorphism, timing and audience interaction, and human interpretation of AI-generated absurdity. It then discusses how live-audience constraints should shape evaluation methodology.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would shift the evaluation of computational humor away from crowdsourced rating tasks toward ecologically valid live settings, which is a genuinely useful corrective given known problems with decontextualized text evaluation. The paper also usefully compiles a scattered set of artistic and technical works and articulates three distinct challenge areas that are likely to be relevant for any future deployable system. The main contribution is conceptual framing rather than empirical proof: the manuscript offers no systematic comparison, no failed cases, and no protocol for attributing audience response to the AI system rather than to human performers or the novelty of the premise.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §2.1, §3.1, §3.2] The paper's central claim that live audiences provide a testbed for "computational humor systems" is contradicted by its own descriptions of the flagship systems. Section 3.1 states that Improbotics relies on human-in-the-loop curation via a "writer's room" that selects AI-generated lines, and that in 2024 the Cyborg performer curates lines while delivering them; Section 3.2 concedes that when AI is used as a writing tool, "audience evaluation is focused primarily on the human performers"; and Section 2.1 hypothesizes that audiences may have evaluated the novelty of show premises rather than comedic quality. Under these conditions, audience laughter or engagement cannot be attributed specifically to the AI's comedic output. The claim should be narrowed to human-AI co-creative systems, or the paper should specify an attribution methodology capable of isolating the AI's contribution.
  2. [Abstract and §5] The paper explicitly selects "examples of successful AI-infused shows" (Abstract) and does not report any failed shows, negative results, or systematic sampling criteria. This makes it impossible to infer the prescriptive claim that live performance is the "perfect substrate" for evaluating computational humor. The evidence presented supports only the weaker statement that live performance is one possible testbed among several. A position paper can reasonably advance a methodological thesis, but it should at least address selection effects and discuss what a disconfirming observation would look like.
  3. [§5] The evaluation toolbox listed in Section 5—audience surveys, laughter microphones, focus groups, and Creativity Support Index metrics—is presented as applicable to live settings, but the paper never explains how any of these tools would separate the AI system's contribution from the human performer's delivery, the human curator's line selection, or the audience's reaction to the premise. This missing protocol is load-bearing because it is the only route from anecdotal reports to the paper's methodological thesis. Adding a concrete evaluation design with confound controls would considerably strengthen the argument.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] The sentence "we hypothesize that audiences may have evaluated the novelty of the premises of those shows in addition to their comedic quality" is a significant caveat that is never revisited in the discussion; the paper would benefit from proposing a way to test this hypothesis empirically.
  2. [§1, §4] There are several typographical and phrasing issues: "Incidently" should be "Incidentally" (Section 4), and "it thus provides with a realistic" (Section 1) should be "it thus provides a realistic." These should be corrected.
  3. [References/Footnotes] Many footnotes (e.g., Footnotes 2–16) are bare URLs without access dates or archival identifiers. For a review paper, accessible and citable sources would improve reproducibility.
  4. [§2.1 and References] The reference to Sutskever et al. (2014) for "large language models" is inaccurate: that work introduced sequence-to-sequence learning, not what is now called an LLM. Consider citing a contemporary neural conversational model (e.g., Vinyals and Le, 2015) more precisely.
  5. [Title and §1] The paper is titled a "Review" but provides no explicit inclusion criteria or scope statement. A brief paragraph describing how the corpus of shows was assembled would help readers understand the intended coverage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper is an argumentative review whose self-citations are illustrative, not load-bearing logical premises.

full rationale

This is a position and review paper rather than a derivation with equations or fitted parameters, so the usual circularity patterns (self-definitional claims, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, imported uniqueness theorems, ansatz smuggling) do not apply. The central claim that live performance is a uniquely challenging testbed for computational humor is argued from a curated set of examples; several flagship examples come from the authors' own companies (Improbotics, HumanMachine), but the claim does not reduce to those examples. External works are cited as independent evidence, including Knight et al. (2011), Srivastava and Fitter (2021), Comedians vs. AI, Boom Chicago, THEaiTRE, and Winters (2024), giving the review independent content beyond the authors' own productions. The paper itself flags the key attribution problem in Section 2.1: "we hypothesize that audiences may have evaluated the novelty of the premises of those shows in addition to their comedic quality," and Section 3.2 concedes that when AI is used as a writing tool, "audience evaluation is focused primarily on the human performers." These acknowledged confounds undermine the strongest reading of the abstract but are limitations of evidence, not circular reasoning: the paper does not define live performance in terms of its conclusion, and it does not present a derived result that is equivalent to its inputs. The self-citations are descriptive reports of prior systems and productions, and while they are frequent, they are not the sole load-bearing justification for the methodological position. The most serious issue is an internal validity tension: the cited successes do not isolate the AI's comedic contribution from human curation and performance, so the evidence better supports live theater as a testbed for human-AI co-creative systems. That concern belongs to correctness and scope, not to circularity, and therefore the circularity score remains low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a review and makes no quantitative claims, so there are no fitted parameters. Its arguments rest on domain assumptions about evaluation validity and the representativeness of its examples.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Humor is a fundamental challenge for AI and a valid subject for computational study.
    Introduction relies on Raskin and Winters to assert humor is an elusive goal, but this is an interpretive frame, not a proof.
  • domain assumption Live audiences give more realistic and less noisy feedback than crowd-sourced workers.
    Section 1 cites Karpinska et al. to reject crowdsourced evaluation, but the positive claim about live audiences is accepted without direct comparison.
  • domain assumption Selected successful shows are representative of the state of the art.
    The review draws on successes, mostly from the authors' own troupe; this is a sampling assumption that is not defended in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Theater Stage as Laboratory: Review of Real-Time Comedy LLM Systems for Live Performance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MTXWGLEX

@misc{pith2026250108474,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Theater Stage as Laboratory: Review of Real-Time Comedy LLM Systems for Live Performance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MTXWGLEX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08474}
}
read the original abstract

In this position paper, we review the eclectic recent history of academic and artistic works involving computational systems for humor generation, and focus specifically on live performance. We make the case that AI comedy should be evaluated in live conditions, in front of audiences sharing either physical or online spaces, and under real-time constraints. We further suggest that improvised comedy is therefore the perfect substrate for deploying and assessing computational humor systems. Using examples of successful AI-infused shows, we demonstrate that live performance raises three sets of challenges for computational humor generation: 1) questions around robotic embodiment, anthropomorphism and competition between humans and machines, 2) questions around comedic timing and the nature of audience interaction, and 3) questions about the human interpretation of seemingly absurd AI-generated humor. We argue that these questions impact the choice of methodologies for evaluating computational humor, as any such method needs to work around the constraints of live audiences and performance spaces. These interrogations also highlight different types of collaborative relationship of human comedians towards AI tools.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Miriam Amin and Manuel Burghardt. 2020. A survey on approaches to computational humor generation. In Proceedings of the The 4th Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature, pages 29--41

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Boyd Branch, Christos Efstratiou, Piotr Mirowski, Kory W Mathewson, and Paul Allain. 2021 a . Tele-immersive improv: Effects of immersive visualisations on rehearsing and performing theatre online. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1--13

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Boyd Branch, Piotr Mirowski, Kory Mathewson, Sophia Ppali, and Alexandra Covaci. 2024. Designing and evaluating dialogue llms for co-creative improvised theatre. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Creativity. Association for Computational Creativity

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Boyd Branch, Piotr Mirowski, and Kory W Mathewson. 2021 b . Collaborative storytelling with human actors and ai narrators. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Creativity. Association for Computational Creativity

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Boyd Branch, Piotr Mirowski, Sophia Ppali, Rocio Von Jungenfeld, Paul Allain, and Christos Efstratiou. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585798 Mirror placement matters in remote collaboration . In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA '23, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    James E Caron. 2002. From ethology to aesthetics: Evolution as a theoretical paradigm for research on laughter, humor, and other comic phenomena. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research

    work page 2002

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Tuhin Chakrabarty, Vishakh Padmakumar, Faeze Brahman, and Smaranda Muresan. 2024. Creativity support in the age of large language models: An empirical study involving professional writers. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition, pages 132--155

    2024

  2. [10]

    Yuetian Chen, Bowen Shi, and Mei Si. 2023. Prompt to gpt-3: Step-by-step thinking instructions for humor generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13195

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Erin Cherry and Celine Latulipe. 2014. Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the creativity support index. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 21(4):1--25

    2014

  4. [12]

    Derek Collins. 2001. Improvisation in rhapsodic performance. Helios, 28(1):11--29

    2001

  5. [13]

    Ziv Epstein, Aaron Hertzmann, Investigators of Human Creativity, Memo Akten, Hany Farid, Jessica Fjeld, Morgan R Frank, Matthew Groh, Laura Herman, Neil Leach, et al. 2023. Art and the science of generative ai. Science, 380(6650):1110--1111

    2023

  6. [14]

    Giancarlo Frosio. 2023. Generative ai in court. Court (September 1, 2023). in Nikos Koutras and Niloufer Selvadurai (eds), Recreating Creativity, Reinventing Inventiveness-International Perspectives on AI and IP Governance (Routledge, 2023, Forthcoming)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Matthew Gervais and David Sloan Wilson. 2005. The evolution and functions of laughter and humor: A synthetic approach. The Quarterly review of biology, 80(4):395--430

    2005

  8. [16]

    Neave Glennon. 2024. https://brightontheinside.co.uk/brighton-fringe/boti-reviews-improbotics/ Boti reviews | artificial intelligence improvisation . Brighton on the inside

    2024

  9. [17]

    Drew Gorenz and Norbert Schwarz. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305364 How funny is chatgpt? a comparison of human-and ai-produced jokes . In PLoS ONE. OSF

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Manuel Flurin Hendry, Norbert Kottmann, Martin Fr \"o hlich, Florian Bruggisser, Marco Quandt, Stella Speziali, Valentin Huber, and Chris Salter. 2023. Are you talking to me? a case study in emotional human-machine interaction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artifici...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Mikhail Jacob, Prabhav Chawla, Lauren Douglas, Ziming He, Jason Lee, Tanuja Sawant, and Brian Magerko. 2019. Affordance-based generation of pretend object interaction variants for human-computer improvisational theater. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Co...

    2019

  12. [20]

    Megan Jamerson. 2023. A comedian and ai walk into a bar. who was funnier? https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/greater-la/artificial-intel-smpd-homeless-oc/ai-comedy. KCRW

    2023

  13. [21]

    Sophie Jentzsch and Kristian Kersting. 2023. Chatgpt is fun, but it is not funny! humor is still challenging large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04563

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Harry H Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Khan, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Alex Hanna, Johnathan Flowers, and Timnit Gebru. 2023. Ai art and its impact on artists. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 363--374

    2023

  15. [23]

    Philip N Johnson-Laird. 2002. How jazz musicians improvise. Music Perception, 19(3)

    2002

  16. [24]

    Keith Johnstone. 1979. Impro: Improvisation and the Theatre. Faber and Faber Ltd

    1979

  17. [25]

    Marzena Karpinska, Nader Akoury, and Mohit Iyyer. 2021. The perils of using mechanical turk to evaluate open-ended text generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1265--1285

    2021

  18. [26]

    Heather Knight, Scott Satkin, Varun Ramakrishna, and Santosh Divvala. 2011. A savvy robot standup comic: Online learning through audience tracking. In Workshop paper (TEI’10)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Kathleen Marguerite Lea. 1934. Italian popular comedy: a study in the commedia dell'arte, 1560-1620 with special reference to the english stage. (No Title)

    1934

  20. [28]

    Gunter Loesel, Piotr Mirowski, and Kory Wallace Mathewson. 2020. Do digital agents do dada? In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Creativity, pages 488--491

    2020

  21. [29]

    Brian Logan. 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/jun/30/whose-generated-line-is-it-anyway-ai-tries-to-crack-humours-dna Whose generated line is it anyway? ai tries to crack humour’s dna . The Guardian

    2023

  22. [30]

    Gunter L \"o sel. 2024. Theatre dialogues with machines. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 49(2):291--304

    2024

  23. [31]

    Brian Magerko et al. 2009. An empirical study of cognition and theatrical improvisation. In ACM Creat. & Cog

    2009

  24. [32]

    Lara J Martin, Brent Harrison, and Mark O Riedl. 2016. Improvisational computational storytelling in open worlds. In Interactive Storytelling: 9th International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, ICIDS 2016, Los Angeles, CA, USA, November 15--18, 2016, Proceedings...

    2016

  25. [33]

    Kory Mathewson and Piotr Mirowski. 2018. Improbotics: Exploring the imitation game using machine intelligence in improvised theatre. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, volume 14, pages 59--66

    2018

  26. [34]

    Kory W Mathewson. 2019. Humour-in-the-loop: Improvised theatre with interactive machine learning systems. PhD Thesis, University of Alberta

    2019

  27. [35]

    Kory W Mathewson and Piotr Mirowski. 2017 a . Improvised theatre alongside artificial intelligences. In Thirteenth Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference

    2017

  28. [36]

    Kory Wallace Mathewson and Piotr Mirowski. 2017 b . Improvised comedy as a turing test. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.08819

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Piotr Mirowski, Juliette Love, Kory Mathewson, and Shakir Mohamed. 2024. A robot walks into a bar: Can language models serve as creativity supporttools for comedy? an evaluation of llms’ humour alignment with comedians. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, a...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Piotr Mirowski, Kory W Mathewson, Boyd Branch, Thomas Winters, Ben Verhoeven, and Jenny Elfving. 2020. Rosetta code: Improv in any language. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Creativity, pages 115--122

    2020

  31. [39]

    Piotr Mirowski, Kory W Mathewson, Jaylen Pittman, and Richard Evans. 2023. Co-writing screenplays and theatre scripts with language models: Evaluation by industry professionals. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1--34

    2023

  32. [40]

    Izabella Pluta. 2016. Theater and robotics: Hiroshi ishiguro’s androids as staged by oriza hirata. Art Research Journal, 3(1):65--79

    2016

  33. [41]

    Victor Raskin. 1979. Semantic mechanisms of humor. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, volume 5, pages 325--335

    1979

  34. [42]

    Rudolf Rosa, Tom \'a s Musil, Ond r ej Du s ek, Dominik Jurko, Patr \' cia Schmidtov \'a , David Mare c ek, Ond r ej Bojar, Tom Kocmi, Daniel Hrbek, David Ko s t' \'a k, et al. 2021. When a robot writes a play: Automatically generating a theatre play script. In Artificial Life...

    2021

  35. [43]

    Mike Sharples and Rafael P \'e rez y P \'e rez. 2022. Story machines: How computers have become creative writers. Routledge

    2022

  36. [44]

    Ajitesh Srivastava and Naomi T Fitter. 2021. A robot walks into a bar: Automatic robot joke success assessment. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2710--2716. IEEE

    2021

  37. [45]

    Ilya Sutskever, Vinyals Oriol, and Quoc V. Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 3104--3112

    2014

  38. [46]

    Gillian Tett. 2023. Can ai crack comedy? https://www.ft.com/content/818f2cab-57ff-42c3-917b-4a83f1d87802. Financial Times

    2023

  39. [47]

    J \"o rg Tiedemann. 2009. News from opus-a collection of multilingual parallel corpora with tools and interfaces. In Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, volume 5, pages 237--248

    2009

  40. [48]

    Alexey Tikhonov and Pavel Shtykovskiy. 2024. Humor mechanics: Advancing humor generation with multistep reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07280

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Joe Toplyn. 2023. Witscript 3: A hybrid ai system for improvising jokes in a conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.02695

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Alan Turing. 1950. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236):433--460

    1950

  43. [51]

    Tony Veale. 2021. Your Wit is My Command: Building AIs with a Sense of Humor. Mit Press

    2021

  44. [52]

    Oriol Vinyals and Quoc Le. 2015. A neural conversational model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.05869

    2015 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Thomas Winters. 2021. Computers learning humor is no joke. Harvard Data Science Review, 3(2)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Thomas Winters. 2024. Evaluating humor generation in an improvisational comedy setting

    2024

  47. [55]

    Thomas Winters and Kory W Mathewson. 2019. Automatically generating engaging presentation slide decks. In International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Music, Sound, Art and Design (Part of EvoStar), pages 127--141. Springer

    2019

  48. [56]

    Thomas Winters, Vincent Nys, and Daniel De Schreye. 2018. Automatic joke generation: Learning humor from examples. In Distributed, Ambient and Pervasive Interactions: Technologies and Contexts: 6th International Conference, DAPI 2018, Held as Part of HCI International 2018, La...

    2018

  49. [57]

    Haonan Zhong, Jiamin Chang, Ziyue Yang, Tingmin Wu, Pathum Chamikara Mahawaga Arachchige, Chehara Pathmabandu, and Minhui Xue. 2023. Copyright protection and accountability of generative ai: Attack, watermarking and attribution. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conferen...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.