Consider this rewrite of the Mobius joke: “Why did the chicken cross the Moebius strip? To get to the other—wait...” There is no verbal or phonetic double sense here. The joke is on the semantic level, due to a violation of expectations, that roads have two sides and thus it’s a valid setup for the chicken joke, and the reader belatedly realizing that a Moebius strip of course only has one side so the chicken is already on the ‘other’ side. The hipster joke is the same way: it is a good satire on hipster self-involvement and signaling. However, it is also not a pun! (This makes sense under my theory of GPT-3 humor: humor on the semantic level is extremely doable by GPT-3 so jokes like those or the Navy Seal parodies work fine, it’s humor on the phonetic level that BPEs sabotage).
The ‘ajar’ one seems like it’s the only one which is actually correct, which makes for a very high error rate.
They are. And they are also not puns.
Consider this rewrite of the Mobius joke: “Why did the chicken cross the Moebius strip? To get to the other—wait...” There is no verbal or phonetic double sense here. The joke is on the semantic level, due to a violation of expectations, that roads have two sides and thus it’s a valid setup for the chicken joke, and the reader belatedly realizing that a Moebius strip of course only has one side so the chicken is already on the ‘other’ side. The hipster joke is the same way: it is a good satire on hipster self-involvement and signaling. However, it is also not a pun! (This makes sense under my theory of GPT-3 humor: humor on the semantic level is extremely doable by GPT-3 so jokes like those or the Navy Seal parodies work fine, it’s humor on the phonetic level that BPEs sabotage).
The ‘ajar’ one seems like it’s the only one which is actually correct, which makes for a very high error rate.