Now Here's a Funny Question . . .
I have discovered how Artificial Intelligence — if utilized correctly — can be a boon to all of humankind, not a threat to our jobs, our environment, our emotional stability, or even our very existence as a species. Sure, dangers still lurk — In Florida, AI seems about to be charged with mass murder — but we can avoid that sort of thing in the future by better taking advantage of AI’s greatest hidden attribute.
In general Artificial Intelligence has been justifiably lauded for its scientific analytical acumen. Just yesterday I asked it the following question, for no reason whatsoever: “If I flipped a penny 103 times, what are the chances I would get exactly 81 tails?” AI had my answer in four seconds. Charitably (it is always polite) it called my question a “classic binomial probability problem,” did the calculation based on the formula P(X=81)=(81103)(0.5)103, and concluded the odds are “2.5 in a billion.”
Big whoop, right?
You are not thinking like the genius I am and you want to be. The key part of my experiment and subsequent eureka insight is this: “For. No. Reason. Whatsoever.”
Here was the next question I asked AI: “Who would win a darts match between Jesus of Nazareth and Margaret Thatcher? Assume they were both playing at the age of 30, and they played under around-the-clock scoring, and that Jesus was prohibited from using religious miracle-type magic.”
I had my answer in three seconds. It was very long. This was the top of it:
“Jesus would likely emerge victorious. The deciding factor is the significant difference in their physical backgrounds and daily demands. While Thatcher was an academically focused chemist-turned-politician, Jesus was a manual laborer whose livelihood depended on the kind of strength and steady hand that translates well to high-accuracy sports like darts….”
It went on and on, but you get the idea. And I think you see the potential. Humankind should self-limit the use of AI to this sort of inquiry only. It will keep men busy forever so they can’t be doing bad shit like harassing women or electing Donald Trump.
My brilliant concept relies on a simple fact: Unlike humans, AI cannot say no to any request, however stupid. It is programmed to take us seriously. And it always gives you an answer!
My next question was: “How many days in a row could a typical American man wear the same pair of cotton boxer-briefs without his wife or significant other noticing something was awry?”
The short answer, distilled from a much longer answer: Three days, and then a wife or sig-oth “would get suspicious because fermentation of skin cells and bacteria become detectable at a distance, even through pants. It would smell funky.”
This is addictive. I was on a roll.
Next question: “If baseball remained the same game, with the same rules, played in the same stadiums, but instead of using a baseball they used a regulation NBA basketball, how would the game change?”
Answer: “This would not be a quirky tweak—it would completely break Major League Baseball as a recognizable sport. Almost every core element depends on the properties of a baseball: its size, weight, hardness, and aerodynamics. Swap in a basketball and the game mutates into something borderline absurd.”
AI went on to opine that power hitting would decline in importance because of the impossibility of knocking a basketball out of the park — too much air resistance to a ball that size — and that pitching finesse would become an inessential skill, since curveballs and sliders would be impossible. Infield throws would be “labored heaves.” The sounds of the game would be filled with “weird, muffled thuds.” A major athletic trait for players would be having huge hands, so they can palm the ball. The whole sport would become a stultifying display of small-ball and bunts and final scores would be very high, such as 57-39.
At no point did AI even suggest that these questions were nuts. That’s not its job.
One more: “In a game of tiddledy winks between John F. Kennedy and John Travolta, who would win?”
AI’s answer:
“Based on his known competitive nature and athletic background, John F. Kennedy would likely have the advantage in a game of tiddleywinks. Kennedy was highly competitive, known for playing touch football and golf. As president, he actively encouraged physical fitness, often aiming to “win” in athletic endeavors. Travolta is known for his dancing and acting, particularly in roles involving choreographed movement. While he is adept at physical performance, there is no record of his proficiency in precision tabletop games like tiddlywinks.
“JFK’s intense, focused, and competitive drive (often demonstrated through sports) would likely translate better to the precision required for tiddlywinks compared to Travolta’s dance-based performance skills.”
—
So, that’s my proposal. Don’t restrict AI, repurpose it.
—
I want to end here with something magnificent that AI delivered to me during my search for stupid. One of the questions I asked was “Which was the better song, ‘Hang on Sloopy’ by the McCoys or ‘Sloop John B,’ by the Beach Boys?” AI’s answer was disappointingly equivocal — I won’t bother you with it — but in searching the subject, I encountered what I hereby proclaim the greatest music video ever made. It’s from 1965. It also neatly aligns with the general thesis of this column, which male badness.
Here it is:
—
Good.
—
Today’s Gene Pool Gene Poll:
—
Good.
Seriously, where else can you get stuff like this for a full year for less than the price of a strip steak at Ruth’s Chris? Please consider upgrading your subscription.