DailyDirt: Computers Creating Content...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Artificial intelligence is getting better and better. Computers can beat humans at all kinds of games without breaking a sweat. To stay ahead of the machines, we keep moving the goalposts on what qualifies as "strong AI" by coming up with more and more tests that computers can't quite pass. If you think software will never be able to write poetry as well as Shakespeare, perhaps you'll have to modify your test in a few years.

• A machine learning algorithm (named DeepBeat) writes rap lyrics based on its analysis of over a hundred human rap artists. Artificial intelligence might be able to create some rhyme schemes that are far more complex than many humans, but it's not so good at conveying a coherent story or message with its skills (yet). [url]
• There's a computer program that writes formulaic sexist jokes, modeled after some human comedians who use the same technique. These algorithmically-generated jokes are generally bad puns -- such as "I like my women like I like my gas ... natural" and "I like my men like I like my court ... superior." [url]
• Computer generated images (CGI) are usually easy to spot because they don't look like a human could draw them by hand, but what about cartoons drawn by an algorithm that was specifically made to look hand-drawn? Randall Munroe might be able to go on an indefinite vacation if he can combine the right algorithms to replace himself. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: ai, algorithms, artificial intelligence, cartoons, cgi, comedians, deepbeat, jokes, machine learning, puns, rap lyrics, turing test, xkcd

PTC Demands An End To Late-Night Fox Cartoons, Forgets What That 'P' In Their Acronym Means

from the is-it-for-penis? dept

You all remember the Parent's Television Council. They're the conservative family values on television police that seem to think nobody should watch anything they don't like. This has amounted to trying to keep kids from seeing documentaries, to being accused of a focus on fund-raising over actually doing anything, and seeming to have the kind of extreme interest in pornography that would worry most psychologists. Basically, they strive to make everything you see as family-friendly as possible, because they have families and you should too and, if you don't, you don't count. Side note: Billy Ray Cyrus is a board member of the PTC, because a guy married multiple times with children outside of wedlock is super in line with conservative family values.

Well, the PTC is back again to ruin everyone's fun. This time, they have their cross-hairs set on Fox's new late-night cartoon program, which is made up of a bunch of cartoon shorts parodying beloved children's programming for adult audiences. The recently-premiered ADHD programming is supposed to eventually compete with other adult-oriented shows in that time slot, notably Saturday Night Live. The majority of the content is only available online, but that doesn't mean a thing to the PTC, who recently publicly blasted Fox Chairman Kevin Reilly over the show.

"Even if Fox selected only the most benign programs from the 'ADHD' block to spin into a half-hour time slot on Sunday nights, there's no getting around the fact that the online counterpart makes available mind-blowingly explicit parodies of cartoons beloved by millions of children, all without any parental controls or age restrictions whatsoever," PTC President Tim Winter wrote in the letter.

So, by now you're probably wondering what has the PTC so up in arms, right? Well, the answer, of course, is turtle penises, as we learn from this NSFW clip.

If you're a child of the 80's and you didn't laugh, you need severe psychiatric care. It's a hilarious parody of what Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles might be if they were depicted more scientifically accurately. And, yes, there are penises. Scary, terrifying, cartoon penises that just make the PTC have to go poopy with anger.

But here's the thing, this show is a late-night show, competing with other shows geared towards adults and shown in a time slot when all good little boys and girls with parents that aren't chimpanzees should be in bed. Or, at the very least, should have their television habits monitored. You know, by their parents. That, after all, is what the "P" in PTC stands for: parents, who, if they're doing their jobs properly, can save their children from the horrors of seeing a half-shelled mega-wang (turtle-power indeed). But, hey, parenting is hard (totally not an intended pun) and grandstanding for fund-raising is easy, which is how we get the PTC trying to make sure no one has any fun.

Filed Under: cartoons, censorship, family values, ninja turtles, parents television council, tv

Joke's On You, Facebook - That's A Testicle Tree

from the nipple-bulge dept

A few years back, we wrote about the brouhaha concerning Facebook banning photos of women breast feeding their babies, under a strict "no female boobs" rule. Rather than learn from that mess, and realize that not all images of breasts are created equal, Facebook seems to have become even more ridiculous over time. Witness the hilarity of the situation that The New Yorker's cartoonists were put in -- when Facebook blocked one of their cartoons by Mick Stevens: As a joke (though some people took it seriously), they had Stevens "redraw" the cartoon with clothing. I won't post it here and ruin the joke (or, non-joke, which makes it a joke) but go check it out. In trying to figure out why the original got blocked, they were eventually directed to some "rules" concerning images, noting that on the forbidden (fruit) list where:

Naked 'private parts' including female nipple bulges and naked butt cracks; male nipples are ok.

Yeah. So, as the folks at The New Yorker pointed out, it appears that this (zoomed in) part of their image (according to Facebook, NSFW, but according to pretty much everyone else, probably fine) is "the problem": Meanwhile, this other part meets Facebook's okay-o-meter: The good folks at The New Yorker argue that they really don't think the first pair of dots above legitimately fit the criteria for being banned, but they've chosen not to fight it:

Now, we could have fought the ruling on technical grounds, because, let’s face it, these female nips, by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how prurient, are just not bulging...

But rather than fight the battle of the bulge, let’s point out, that while female nipple bulging, or F.N.B. for short, is a potentially serious problem, with as yet no known cure, it also has no known victims. That is, unless you count freedom of expression, common sense, and humor.

Now, this is all just a bit of a humorous reaction* to silly overblocking by Facebook, but it does actually raise some legitimate concerns, considering how central Facebook has become in our lives. For many people it is a key platform for expression, and as such, it takes on greater meaning and importance. Yes, as a private company, they have every right to set the rules that they want to set, no matter how arbitrary or asinine. But, you begin to worry about so many people relying on Facebook as the most important way in which they communicate, when they can run afoul of such obviously ridiculous "rules."

* Random aside: a few months back I got to see three New Yorker cartoonists host a discussion/speed drawing contest, in which they talked about what life was like as a New Yorker cartoonist, and it may have been one of the funniest things I've ever seen -- by far beating most, if not all, of the stand up comedy acts I've seen over the years. If you ever have a chance to see these guys speak, do not miss it.

Filed Under: adam and eve, breasts, cartoons, censorship, new yorker, nipple bulge, nipples
Companies: facebook

FCC Asked To Block New Cartoon Series... For The Children

from the gi-joe? dept

Benny6Toes alerts us to the news that a children's advocacy group is demanding that the FCC block a new cartoon show that uses a character from shoe company Skechers' advertisements as a part of the series, claiming that it would be the equivalent of a 30-minute commercial, which is against the requirements of the Children's Television Act. The group claims: "the show could pave the way for Ronald McDonald, Tony the Tiger and other iconic cartoon pitchmen to become stars of their own series."

Indeed, but as Benny notes: "After all, what are cartoons for Transformers, G.I. Joe (does that show my age?), Pokemon, or dozens of other kids shows for if not to sell related merchandise?" Saturday morning cartoons have been filled with half-hour long "advertisements" for merchandise for years. More to the point, Benny points out that isn't this really something for parents to decide, rather than the FCC:

But here's a better question: even if it is a 30 minute advertisement, should the FCC (or any government agency) be able to stop a show for that reason? Soap operas, though not targeted at children, were sponsored in whole by specific companies when they originally debuted on radio. That's why they're called, "soap operas."

Shouldn't the parents be able to say, "no," to their children?

Yes, people get annoyed at how commercial children's programming has become, but is that really the FCC's job to deal with it?

Filed Under: advertising, cartoons, children
Companies: fcc, skechers

Newspaper Gets Around Photography Ban At Football Event With Cartoon Illustrations

from the don't-mess-with-reporters dept

We've covered a few different recent stories of various sports leagues or professional sports teams trying to limit how journalists and photographers can report on their games, and have even covered cheeky attempts to get around such restrictions by having reporters cover events from home while watching on TV. Now, a whole bunch of you have been sending in variations on a story in the UK, where the Southampton football team apparently has decided to ban photojournalists from taking images of matches, instead telling newspapers they need to buy photos from the team's "official" photographer.

Thankfully, some of the newspapers covering the latest match felt that was ridiculous, and chose to respond in some rather creative ways. The Plymouth Herald, who was covering the visiting team, decided to employ someone to draw cartoons of key moments in the match, rather than using the official photographs:

Perhaps even more amusing? Some reports point out that The Sun covered the game by carefully making sure to never mention Southampton or any of its players. Well played.

Filed Under: cartoons, football, limits, photographers, reporting, uk