I think at-home audiences would much appreciate honest reactions in shows recorded in front of a live studio audiences, rather than the artificially enhanced versions they use today. While the more natural versions of laugh tracks are an improvement on their predecessors, they still lack an authenticity that I think modern day audiences would love.
Yes, I would appreciate the show more if there was just an honest reaction because I do not have to be told how to react to a script. In many ways, I would prefer no laughter at all. I like comedies that do not force you to hear how others respond.
Yes, real live studio audience reaction is the best way to tell if the show is funny or not. Same thing applies to a stand-up comedy routine. Because the performer has to try his best in order to elicit laughter from the crowd, so too the recorded show have to try their best if they want to make a funny tv show.
Honesty is always best. Entertainment often features an "edited and improved" life which is unrealistic. Unrealistic entertainment gives an emotional high but also a corresponding emotional low. These "enhanced" performances give the audience a craving for the unnatural. They became bored and discontent, and therefore, less qualified for real life.
No thanks, canned laughter or laughter from the studio audience, or laughter of any sort that is not as per the script are ways employed by production studios to create this false atmosphere of shared, harmonious humor that as majority's sentiments towards social media has revealed, and as ashamed as I am in admitting I lack the constant discipline to remain independent of the appeal of cued laughter, we like company and even defer to majority opinion at times (think peer pressure felt from having misunderstood a joke). So, in order a show to truly be objectively assessed if laughter is appropriate and warranted, a show's merits should stem from the acting, writing, production- basically, the finished product, as it is (that unless the inclusion of a laughter track is deemed essential aspect of the show, like how it is used in that one show as a satire on canned laughter used way too generously)-, otherwise it would hamper an honest, unadulterated appreciation and evaluation of the show from being formed. "Good" comedies, like F.R.I.E.N.D.S., that used laughter tracks completely distort the perception of what is funny being that laughter is a very specific response, and in observing this response, even if it is understood to be not worthy of a good chuckle, over sufficient amount of time, it does seep into and stays in the consciousness that laughter heard equals the-show-was-funny; think comedy clubs and how they manipulate their guests into laughing by plying them with alcohol.
To put my point into context, if Lord of the Rings had included laughter tracks recorded from a genuine viewing audience of the movie and edited it into parts appropriate, it is very likely the movie wouldn't have received the acclaim it has today. I suppose that is why there aren't any respected awards for any form audience involvement in any form of media, much less for The Television Program for Best Laughter Track. Laughter track of any kind, is very insulting and it takes a large part of the fun from watching comedies- thank goodness Arrested Development and Curb did not have laughter tracks played during their episodes.