modeling contingent wisdom exploring predictive insights modeling intelligent estimations calculating definitive predictions forecasting probable forecasts mapping the future generating calibrated contingencies calculating quantitative insights formulating intelligent wisdom delivering contingent predictions predicting definitive wisdom exploring critical predictions formulating precise predictions forecasting probable futures

Question

Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

When will an AI pass the laugh test?

In this article computer scientist Gary Marcus laid down the gauntlet:

...allow me to propose a Turing Test for the twenty-first century: build a computer program that can watch any arbitrary TV program or YouTube video and answer questions about its content.... no existing program—not Watson, not Goostman, not Siri—can currently come close to doing what any bright, real teenager can do: watch an episode of “The Simpsons,” and tell us when to laugh.

For the purposes of this question, assume that a data set has been created based on labeling of at least 100 episodes of a television comedy (obviously without laugh track/studio audience and preferably but not necessarily The Simpsons.)

Using at most 25 episodes as part of the training corpus, when will an ML system achieve 90% of human accuracy when tested on 25 other different randomly chosen episodes?

Fine print:

  • The accuracy metric is unspecified but should essentially compare at what points in each episode a human specifies "I laughed or smiled." The human accuracy can be drawn directly from the training data, since it is labeled by human comedic assessment.

  • The training set can include other videos but at most 25 of the comedy in question.

  • It is of course uncertain that such a dataset will be developed (though the author encourages it) or that it will become a significant target of ML research. If no ML papers attempting such a test are published by 2030 the question resolves as ambiguous.

{{qctrl.predictionString()}}

Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available. With tachyons you'll even be able to go back in time and backdate your prediction to maximize your points.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site

Community Stats

Metaculus help: Community Stats

Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.

When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.