The study examined humorous interactions with intelligent personal assistants (IPAs, including Google Assistant, Amazon Alexa, Microsoft Cortana, Apple Siri) with the aim of classifying user utterances, IPA responses and user reactions of system responses. Data from online diaries and paper questionnaires were collected and analyzed using content analysis method. The findings suggest that the most frequent types of utterances include questions that test system “personality” and opinions. Joke requests are also frequent and produce pre-programmed humor that users generally find funny. The initial classification of humorous utterances has been validated and expanded using published datasets of humorous utterances for the four investigated IPAs. The findings can be used for immediate improvements to IPA performance as well as long-term development of IPA personas.
BellegradeJ (2014) Spoken language understanding for natural interaction: The Siri experience. In: MarianiJRossetSGarnier-RizetM, et al. (eds) Natural Interaction with Robots, Knowbots and Smartphones: Putting Spoken Dialog Systems into Practice. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, pp.3–14.
FiskeSCuddyAGlickP (2007) Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences11: 77–83.
11.
GrahamEE (1995) The involvement of sense of humor in the development of social relationships. Communication Reports8: 158-169.
12.
HeaterB (2016) Google is looking to creative writers and comedians to help humanize Assistant. In: Tech Crunch. Available at: www.techcrunch.com/2016/10/10/google-laughsistant (accessed 2 October 2018).
HongBAOngE (2009) Automatically extracting word relationships as templates for pun generation. In: Proceedings of the workshop on computational approaches to linguistic creativity (CALC ‘09). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 24–31.
KhooshabehPMcCallCGandheS, et al. (2011) Does it matter if a computer jokes? In: CHI EA ’11 CHI ’11 Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM, pp. 77–86.
18.
KiddonCBrunY (2011) That’s what she said: Double entendre identification. In: Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human language technologies. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 89–94.
19.
KnightW (2012) Social intelligence. Siri May not be the smartest AI in the world, but it’s the most socially adept. Technology ReviewMay/June: 80–82.
20.
KuiperNALeiteC (2010) Personality impressions associated with four distinct humor styles. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology51(2): 115–122.
MartinRA (2007) The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. 1st edn.Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.
23.
MartinRAPuhlik-DorisPLarsenG, et al. (2003) Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality37(1): 48–75
24.
MayringP (2000) Qualitative Content Analysis [28 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research1(2): Art. 20.
25.
MeyerJC (2000) Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory10(3): 310–311.
26.
MihalceaRStrapparavaC (2006) Learning to laugh (automatically): Computational models for humor recognition. Computational Intelligence22(20): 126–142.
27.
MillerTHempelmannCGurevychI (2017) Detection and interpretation of English puns. In: Proceedings of the 11th international workshop on semantic evaluations (SemEval-2017). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 58–68.
MoriM (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy7(4): 33–35.
30.
NiculescuAvan DijkBNijholtA, et al. (2013) Making social robots more attractive: The effects of voice pitch, humor and empathy. International Journal of Social Robotics5(2): 171–191.
NijholtANiculescuAIValituttiA, et al. (2017) Humor in human-computer interaction: A short survey. In: BernhauptRDalviGJoshiA, et al. (eds) Adjunct Conference Proceedings Interact 2017. Bombay, India: Industrial Design Centre, Indian Institute of Technology, pp. 527–530.
33.
NorrickNR (1993) Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
RajadesinganAZafaraniRLiuH (2015) Sarcasm detection on Twitter: A behavioral modeling approach. In: Proceedings of the eighth ACM international conference on web search and data mining (WSDM ‘15). New York: ACM, pp. 97–106.
37.
Raphaelson-WestD (1989) On the feasibility and strategies of translating humour. Meta34(1): 128–141.
38.
ReyesARossoPVealeT (2013) A multidimensional approach for detecting irony in Twitter. Language Resources and Evaluation47(1): 239–268.
39.
RitchieG (2009) Can computers create humor?AI Magazine30(3): 71–81.
40.
RuchW (1992) Assessment of appreciation of humor: Studies with the 3WD humor test. Advances in Personality Assessment9: 27–75.
41.
ShahafDHorvitzEMankoffR (2015) Inside jokes: Identifying humorous cartoon captions. In: Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD ‘15). New York: ACM, pp. 1065–1074.
StockOStrapparavaC (2015) HAHAcronym: A computational humor system. In: Proceedings of the ACL interactive poster and demonstration sessions. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 113–116.
44.
TaylorJMMazlackLJ (2004) Computationally recognizing wordplay in jokes. In: ForbusKGentnerDRegierT (eds) Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1315–1320.
45.
TaylorJMRaskinV (2013) Towards the cognitive informatics of natural language: The case of computational humor. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence7(3): 25–45.
46.
ValituttiAToivonenHDoucetA, et al. (2013) ‘Let Everything Turn Well in Your Wife’: Generation of adult humor using lexical constraints. In: Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 243–248.
47.
YangDLavieADyerC, et al. (2015) Humor recognition and humor anchor extraction. In: MàrquezLCallison-BurchCSuJ (eds) Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 2367–2376.
48.
YueXJiangFLuS, et al. (2016) To be or not to be humorous? Cross cultural perspectives on humor. Frontiers in Psychology7(1495): 1–10.
49.
ZhangRLiuN (2014) Recognizing humor on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM international conference on information and knowledge management (CIKM ‘14). New York: ACM, pp. 889–898.
