, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 553–561 | Cite as

Machine humour: examples from Turing test experiments

  • Huma Shah
  • Kevin WarwickEmail author
Open Forum


In this paper, we look at the possibility of a machine having a sense of humour. In particular, we focus on actual machine utterances in Turing test discourses. In doing so, we do not consider the Turing test in depth and what this might mean for humanity, rather we merely look at cases in conversations when the output from a machine can be considered to be humorous. We link such outpourings with Turing’s “arguments from various disabilities” used against the concept of a machine being able to think, taken from his seminal work of 1950. Finally we consider the role that humour might play in adding to the deception, integral to the Turing test, that a machine in practice appears to be a human.


Deception detection Natural language Turing’s imitation game Chatbots Machine humour 


  1. Al-Katib M (1999) Joke-telling in Jordanian society: a sociolinguistic perspective. Humor Int J Humor Res 12(3):261–288Google Scholar
  2. Attardo S (2001) Humorous texts: a semantic and pragmatic analysis. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett D (2012) Artificial intelligence, I’ll say why computers can’t joke?
  4. Benton G (1988) The origins of political jokes. In: Powell C et al (eds) Humor in society: resistance and control. St. Martin’s Press, New York, pp 33–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binstead K (1996) Machine humour: an implemented model of puns. PhD Thesis, Edinburgh UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. Boden M (1998) Creativity and artificial intelligence. Artif Intell 103(1–2):347–356MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Copeland B (2004) The essential Turing—the ideas that gave birth to the computer age. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. De Bruyn P (1989) My grandfather the hunter: a humorous translation from Afrikaans to English. Meta 34:79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dennett D (1997) Kinds of minds: toward an understanding of consciousness. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Dybala P, Ptaszynski M, Higuchi S, Rzepka R, Araki K (2010) Multiagent system for joke generation: humour and emotions combined in human-agent conversation. J Ambient Intell Smart Environ 2(1):31–48Google Scholar
  11. Dybala P, Ptaszynski M, Higuchi S, Rzepka R, Araki K (2008) Humor prevails!—implementing a joke generator into a conversational system. In: Proceedings of AI 2008 advances in artificial intelligence, vol 5360, LNCS, pp 214–225Google Scholar
  12. Farghal M (2006) Accidental humour in international public notices displayed in English. J Intercult Commun (12)Google Scholar
  13. Fowler H, Fowler F (eds) (1995) The concise Oxford dictionary of current English, 9th edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 486Google Scholar
  14. Grice H (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Speech acts. Academic Press, New York, pp 41–58Google Scholar
  15. Moor J (2003) The status and future of the Turing test. In: Moor JH (ed) The Turing test—the Elusive standard of artificial intelligence. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 197–214Google Scholar
  16. Penrose R (1994) Shadows of the mind. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Rickman P (1999) The philosopher as joker. Philos Now 25:10–11Google Scholar
  18. Ritchie G, Manurung R, Pain H, Waller A, Black R, O’Mara D (2007) A practical application of computational humour. In: Proceedings of computational creativity, pp 91–98Google Scholar
  19. Shah H (2010) Deception detection and machine intelligence in practical Turing tests. PhD thesis, The University of ReadingGoogle Scholar
  20. Shah H, Henry O (2005) Confederate effect in human-machine textual interaction. In: Proceedings of 5th WSEAS int. conf. on information science, communications and applications (WSEAS ISCA), Cancun, Mexico, ISBN: 960-8457-22-X, pp 109–114, 11–14 May 2005Google Scholar
  21. Shah H, Warwick K, Bland I, Chapman C, Allen M (2012) Turing’s imitation game: role of error-making in intelligent thought. Turing in Context II, Brussels, 10-12 October, pp 31–32, 2012. Presentation available here:
  22. Shah H, Warwick K, Carpenter R, (2008) Can a machine tell a joke?. In: Proceedings of European conference on computing and philosophy, Montpellier, June 2008Google Scholar
  23. Shah H, Warwick K (2010) Testing Turing’s five-minutes, parallel-paired imitation game. Kybernetes 39(3):449–465CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Shah H, Warwick K, Vallverdu J, Wu D (2016) Can machines talk? Comparison of Eliza with modern conversation systems. Comput Hum Behav 58:278–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith P (1991) The joke machine: communicating traditional humour using computers. In: Bennett G (ed) Spoken in jest. University of Sheffield Press, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  26. Sterrett S (2003) Turing’s two tests for intelligence. In: Moor J (ed) The Turing test—the Elusive standard of artificial intelligence. The Netherlands, Kluwer, pp 79–97Google Scholar
  27. Stevenson A (ed) (2010) Oxford dictionary of English. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Turing A (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind LIX(236):433–460MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Warwick K (2011) Artificial intelligence: the basics. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  30. Warwick K (2012) Not another look at the Turing Test!. In: Bielikova M, Friedrich G, Gottlob G, Katzenbeisser S, Turan G (eds.) Proceedings of SOFSEM 2012: theory and practice of computer science (Lecture notes in computer science), vol 7147. Springer, pp 130–140Google Scholar
  31. Warwick K, Shah H (2016a) Turing’s imitation game: conversations with the unknown. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Warwick K, Shah H (2014a) Good machine performance in practical Turing tests. IEEE Trans Comput Intell AI Games 6(3):289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Warwick K, Shah H (2014b) Assumption of knowledge and the Chinese room in Turing test interrogation. AI commun 27(3):275–283MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Warwick K, Shah H (2015a) Can machines think? A report on Turing test experiments at the royal society. J Exp Theor Artif Intell. doi: 10.1080/0952813X.2015.1055826 Google Scholar
  35. Warwick K, Shah H (2015b) Human misidentification in Turing tests. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 27(2):123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Warwick K, Shah H (2016b) Effects of lying in practical turing tests. AI & Soc 31(1):5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warwick K, Shah H (2016c) The importance of a human viewpoint on computer natural language capabilities: a Turing test perspective. AI & Soc 31(2):207–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Warwick K, Shah H, Moor J (2013) Some implications of a sample of practical Turing tests. Mind Mach 23:163–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Coventry UniversityCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations