REVIEW 4 cited by
Do Androids Laugh at Electric Sheep? Humor "Understanding" Benchmarks from The New Yorker Caption Contest
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Do Androids Laugh at Electric Sheep? Humor "Understanding" Benchmarks from The New Yorker Caption Contest
read the original abstract
Large neural networks can now generate jokes, but do they really "understand" humor? We challenge AI models with three tasks derived from the New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contest: matching a joke to a cartoon, identifying a winning caption, and explaining why a winning caption is funny. These tasks encapsulate progressively more sophisticated aspects of "understanding" a cartoon; key elements are the complex, often surprising relationships between images and captions and the frequent inclusion of indirect and playful allusions to human experience and culture. We investigate both multimodal and language-only models: the former are challenged with the cartoon images directly, while the latter are given multifaceted descriptions of the visual scene to simulate human-level visual understanding. We find that both types of models struggle at all three tasks. For example, our best multimodal models fall 30 accuracy points behind human performance on the matching task, and, even when provided ground-truth visual scene descriptors, human-authored explanations are preferred head-to-head over the best machine-authored ones (few-shot GPT-4) in more than 2/3 of cases. We release models, code, leaderboard, and corpus, which includes newly-gathered annotations describing the image's locations/entities, what's unusual in the scene, and an explanation of the joke.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
We-Math: Does Your Large Multimodal Model Achieve Human-like Mathematical Reasoning?
WE-MATH benchmark reveals most LMMs rely on rote memorization for visual math while GPT-4o has shifted toward knowledge generalization.
-
Not All Flips Are Conformity: Decomposing Stance Convergence in Multi-Agent LLM Debate
The paper introduces a three-source decomposition showing that answer flips in multi-agent LLM debate include 37% spontaneous instability and 29% harmful conformity, with even vacuous reasoning persuading 20-39% of re...
-
Formalizing Latent Thoughts: Four Axioms of Thought Representation in LLMs
Four axioms (Causality, Minimality, Separability, Stability) are formalized for latent thought representations; audits of open LLMs on 23 tasks show none satisfy all four and representations add little beyond input em...
-
Gemma 3 Technical Report
Gemma 3 introduces multimodal open models with architectural changes for efficient long context, trained via distillation and a new post-training recipe that makes the 4B version competitive with prior 27B models and ...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.