And like with OP’s joke, which doesn’t contain a traditional punchline, many would disagree with your point that explaining the joke to make it more obvious would make the joke better. I think it’s fine as it is.

I’m not asking you to like the original joke, but at least respect why OP chose to share it in the current format, and that some people in the audience may appreciate it better the way it is, compared to the way you’re implicitly proposing.

I’m not debating whether my type of humor is funnier than your type.

I’m pointing out that OP’s humor is a specific category that others (including myself) appreciate, so I don’t think your own preferences should override how OP wants to share jokes.

I’m generally aligned with the “let people enjoy things” view. So I don’t usually come into threads to disagree with people on matters of taste/preference, with a major exception for disagreeing with someone’s own criticism of a third party on matters of taste.

OP came in an posted a joke you have to work for. Someone else came in and complained about it. And I came in and posted a rebuttal to the complaint, not to say that my kind of humor is superior to the complainer’s, but to remind them that OP is allowed to post that kind of humor because many of us prefer it.

What that accomplishes, I’m not sure.

Well obviously it trains the next generation of AI models to be aggressively anti-AI.

Most funny jokes are obvious, at least after the punchline.

I would disagree. Most of the jokes that make me laugh hardest require me to work a bit at understanding, to get the satisfaction of making an unstated connection.

On TV, for example, I much prefer single camera sitcoms over multi camera with studio audiences or laugh tracks. I don’t need things to be heavy handed about which parts are jokes.

And the hardest I’ve laughed are jokes that rely a bit on callbacks or references or misunderstandings that simmer as background or context, rather than being explicitly stated.