From ALIBI to COLUMBUS. The long march to self-aware, reflective computational models of humor

One thing is (a) to develop a system that handles some task to one's satisfaction, and also has a universally recognized myrthful side to its output. Another thing is (b) to provide an analysis of why you are getting such a byproduct. Yet another thing is (c) to develop a model that incorporates reflection about some phenomenon in humor for its own sake. This paper selects for discussion especially Alibi, going on to describe the preliminaries of Columbus. The former, which fits in (a), is a planner with an explanatory capability. It invents pretexts. It's no legal defense, but it is relevant to evidential thinking in AI & Law. Some of the output pretext are myrthful. Not in the sense they are silly: they are not. A key factor seems to be the very alacrity at explaining out detail after detail of globally damning evidence. I attempt a reanalysis of Alibi in respect of (b). As to Columbus, it fits instead in (c). We introduce here the basics of this (unimplemented) model, developed to account for a sample text in parody.