The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 2 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
ELIZA—A Computer Program For the Study of Natural Language Communication Between Man and Machine
Open accessAbstract
Communication Between Man And Machine,JosEPh ~VEIZENBA UM Massach.usclls[nshl-ute qf Tcchnu[ogg,* Cambridge, Mass.ELIZA is a program operating within the MAC time-sharing system at MIT which makes certain kinds of natural language conversation between man and computer possible.Input sentences are analyzed on the basis of decomposition rules which are triggered by key words appearing in the input text.Responses are generated by reassembly rules associated with selected decomposition rules.The fundamental technical problems with which ELIZA is concerned are: (1) the identification of key words, (2) the discovery of minimal context, (3) the choice of appropriate transformations, (4) generation of responses in the absence of key words, and (5) the provision of an editing capability for ELIZA "scripts".A discussion of some psychological issues relevant to the ELIZA approach as well as of future developments concludes the paper.Work reported herein was supported (iu prot) by Project MAC, an _\-lIT research program sponsored by the Advm~ced Research Pr,,jects Aget,cy, l)~l)ar~met~t ~,1" l)ofense, under Office of Naval Research Contract Number Nora'-4102(01).
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
ELIZA is an early natural-language conversation program that scans input for keywords and applies associated decomposition and reassembly rules to generate responses. The paper describes its architecture, script mechanisms, and psychological implications, while stressing that ELIZA simulates understanding rather than possessing it.
Key findings
- ELIZA selects the highest-ranked keyword found in an input text, then tries matching decomposition rules and applies an associated reassembly rule; if no keyword is found, it can use the reserved `NONE` category for content-free remarks or the `MEMORY` mechanism to reuse earlier transformed text.
- Scripts are data rather than part of the program, so ELIZA is not tied to one recognition pattern or language; the paper states that scripts existed in Welsh and German as well as English.
- Implementation details include a keyword dictionary using a `KEY` vector of 128 contiguous computer words, hashing keywords to a 7-bit integer; the largest dictionary attempted contained about 50 keywords, and no list in the `KEY` vector held more than two key list structures.
- The discussion reports that the main serious scripts made ELIZA respond roughly like Rogerian psychotherapists, and that some subjects were hard to convince ELIZA was not human, which the paper calls a striking form of Turing’s test.
Methods
- Design: ELIZA was implemented on MIT’s MAC time-sharing system and written in MAD-SLIP for the IBM 7091 as printed; users typed natural-language statements, and a double carriage return transferred control to ELIZA.
- Data or sample: the paper uses illustrative conversations and script fragments, especially a Rogerian-style script, rather than a formal user study or quantitative dataset.
- Main analysis: technical exposition of decomposition and reassembly rules, keyword ranking via a keystack, substitution rules, equivalence classes, `MEMORY` and `NONE`, and script editing through the MAC `ED` program, followed by discussion of psychological credibility and future directions.
Limitations
- Stated: ELIZA discards its inputs except for a few transformed through the `MEMORY` machinery, lacks the capacity to store selected parts of input and draw valid conclusions, and has often aimed to conceal its lack of understanding.
- Stated: the script contains specific hypotheses about the world despite claims that the psychiatric interview format avoids storing real-world information; the paper also says bounds on ELIZA’s extendability come from the program, not from any script.
- Evident: no controlled evaluation or quantitative outcome data are reported; the evidence is illustrative transcripts and script examples, and the provided text is OCR-noisy and incomplete in places, making some technical details uncertain.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
25 No basis given · 14 Own interpretation · 3 Not checked yet
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ELIZA is a program operating within the MAC time-sharing system at MIT which makes certain kinds of natural language conversation between man and computer possible.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ELIZA in its use so far has had as one of its principal objectives the cot~cetdment of its lack of understanding.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ELIZA performs best when its human correspondent is ilfitially instructed to “taJk” to it, via the typewriter of course, just as one would to a psychiatrist.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But.there are bounds on the extendability of ELIZA's “understanding” power, which arc a function of the ELIZA program itself and not a function of any script it may be given.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the t?sychbJ:ric interview form of an I';LIZA script has the advantage that it eliminates the need of storing e.~:pUcit inform:tth?n about the real world.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A switch of objectives from the concealmeat to the revelation of misunderstanding is seen as a precondition to making an ELIZA-like program the basis for an effective natural language man machine communication system.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 35
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The largest dictionary so far attempted contains about 50 keywords.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ELIZA scripts exist (at, this writing) in Welsh attd Gernmn as well as in English.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course, lhe set of transformation rules can be guaranteed to terminate with a decomposition rule which nmst match.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The decomposition rule (o K o) will match any text in which tile word K appears while (0) will match any text whaiever.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Input sentences are analyzed on the basis of decomposition rules which are triggered by key words appearing in the input text.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For e>:ample, the tran>formation rules which cause ihc input Everybody hates me to be transformed to Can you think of anyone in particular and other such are based on quite specific hypotheses about the world.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The eurrent version of E L I Z A requires that one keyword be associated with M E M O R Y and that exactly four transformations aceoinpany that word in that context.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whenever it is the highest ranking keyword of a text one of the transformations on the M E M O R Y list is randomly selected, and a copy of the text is transformed accordingly.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The system described so far is ess(qltially one which selects ~t decomposition rule for the highest ranking keyword found in an input text, attempts to match that text according to that decomposition rule and, failing to make a match, selects the next reassembly rule associated with the matching decomposition rule and applies it.to generate an output texi.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This mechanism makes it possible to, in effect, test on key phrases as opposed to single key words.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No list named in any of the words of the KEY vector contains more than two key list structures.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The “given language” is English as is the “other language”, expressions of which arc generated.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a text without keywords is encountered later and a certain counting mechanism is in a particular state and the stack in question is not empty, then the transformed text is printed out as the reply•”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The script that has formed the basis for most of this discussion happens to be one with an overwhehningly psychological orientation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“~.~: idea ihat the presettt ELIZA s{:rk)t contains no infocmation about tl~e real world i:s ,tot.e~tirely true.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An important property of ELIZA is that a script is data; i.e., it is not part of the program itself.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seine subjects'have been very hm'd to convince t h a t E L I Z A (with its present script) is not hunmn.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Suftice it to say that changes, additions and deletions of the script may be made with considerable efficiency and on the basis of entirely contextual cues, i.e., without resort to line numbers or any other artificial devices.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is, however, another mechanism which causes the s y s t e m to respond more spectacularly in the absence of a key.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Responses are generated by reassembly rules associated with selected decomposition rules.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tl, Js mechanism h~st,res that the complete set of reassernbly rules ~ssoeiated with a given deeomposh:ion rule is cycled through before any repetitions 0CCUY,”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Then, the input text Am I siek would elicit either ])o you believe you are siek or Why do yotl ask i depending on how many tinles the general form had already occurred.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At this writing, the only serious ELIZA scripts whieh exist are seine which cause E L I Z A to respond roughly as would certain psychotherapists (Rogerians).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, E L I Z A is not restricted to a particular set of recognition patterns or responses, indeed not even to any specific language.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A large part of whatever elegance may be credited to ELIZA lies in the fact that ELIZA maintains the illusion of understanding with so little machinery.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seen in the coldest possible light, ELIZA is a translating processor in Gorn's sense; however, it is one which has been especially constructed to work well with natural language text.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is striking to note how well his words/fit ELIZA.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In principle, the given hmguage could as well be the kind of English in which “word problems” in algebr~L am given to high school students and the other language, a machine code allowing a particular computer to “solve” the stated problems.(See Bobrow's program S T U D E N T [3].)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] 3. Bom¢ow, D.G. Natural language input for a computer prob- lem solving system. Doctoral thesis, Math. Dept., MIT. Cambridge, Mass., 1964.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order for a computer program to be able to do that, it must at least have the capacity to store 8elected parts of its inputs.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The crucial test of understanding is not the ability to continue a conversation but to draw valid conclusions from what one is being told.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The whole script constitutes, in a loose way, a model of certain aspects of the world.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course, the problem is more than one of storage.A great part of it is, in fact, subsumed under the word “selected” used just, above.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Given a language which already possesses semantic content, then a translating processor, even if it operates only syntactically, generates correspondittg expressions of another language to which we can attritmte as “meanings” (possibly multiple--the translator may not be one to one) the “semantic intents” of the generating source expressions; whether we find the result consistent or useful.or both”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] 2. Goax, S. Semiotic relationships in ambiguously stratified bmguage systems. Paper presented at Int. Colloq. Algebraic Linguistics and Automatic Theory, Hebrew U. of Jerusalem, Aug. 1964.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is useful to remember that the ELIZA program itself is merely a translating processor in the technical programming sense.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“E L I Z A shows, if nothing else, how easy it is to create and nmiutain the illusion of understanding, hence perhaps of j u d g m e n t”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The human speaker contributes much to clothe ELIZA's responses in plausibility.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But to encourage its conversational partner to offer inputs from which it can select remedial information, it, must ret, eal its mistmderstanding.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An important consequence of the editing facility built into ELIZA is that a given ELIZA script need not start out to be a large, full-blown scenario.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The MAC system parameters generally contribute so little to the overall response time that conversational interaction with the computer need never involve truly intolerable delays.
“These latter parameters generally contribute so little to the overall response time that conversational interaction with the computer need never involve truly intolerable delays.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The determination that a word is not in a dictionary may well require more computation (i.e., time) than the location of a word which is represented.
“The iirst is serious in that the determination that a word is not in a dictionary may well require more computation (i.e., time) than the location of a word which is represented.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Almost none of the words in any given sentence are represented in the keyword dictionary.
“One stems from the fact that almost none of the words in any given sentence are repre.sented in the keyword dictionary.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The transformation rule mechanism of SLIP permits tagging of words in a text and their subsequent recovery on the basis of one of their tags.
“The transformation rule mechanism of SLIP is such that.it permits tagging of words in a text and their subsequent recovery on the basis of one of their tags.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A human speaker will not defend his illusion that he is being understood against all odds.
“But he will not defend his illusion (that he is being understood) against all odds.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In human conversation a speaker makes certain, perhaps generous, assumptions about his conversational partner.
“In tmnutn eonversat:on a speaker will make certain (perhaps generous) assmnl)lions about his conversational partner.”
The paper relies on this without support.
As long as the partner's responses can be interpreted consistently with those assumptions, the speaker's image of his partner remains unchanged and undamaged.
“As long as ~ it remains possible to interpret the latter's response~ consistently with those assumptions, the speaker's image of his partner remains unchanged, in particular, undanmged.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Responses difficult to interpret consistently may enhance the image of the partner through additional rationalizations.
“Responses wlfieh are difficult to so interpret m a y well result in an enhancement of the inmge of the partner, in additional rationalizations which then make more con> plicated interpretations of his responses reasonable.”
The paper relies on this without support.
When rationalizations become too massive and self-contradictory, the entire image may crumble and be replaced.
“When, however, such rationalizations become too inassive and even self-contradictory, the entire image may erumble and be replaeed by another (“He is not, after all, as s m a r t as I thought he was”).”
The paper relies on this without support.
When the conversational partner is a machine, credibility may be substituted for plausibility.
“When the conversational pa.rtner is a machine (the distinction between nmchine and prograin is here not useful) then the idea of credibility may weU be substituted for that. of pla.'uaibiStfl in the above.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The crucial test of understanding is not the ability to continue a conversation but to draw valid conclusions from what one is being told.
“The crucial test of understanding, as every teacher should know, is not the subject's ability to continue a conversation, but to draw valid conclusions h'om what. he is being told.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Important decisions increasingly tend to be made in response to computer output.
“I m p o r t a n t decisions increasingly tend to be made in response to computer output.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The ultimately responsible human interpreter of “What the machine says” is constantly faced with the need to make credibility judgments.
“The uhimately responsible human interpreter of “What the machine says” is, not unlike the correspondent with E H Z A , constantly faced with the need to make credibility judgments.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The act of writing a script is a kind of programming act and has all the advantages of programming, most particularly that it clearly shows where the programmer's understanding and command of his subject leaves off.
“The act of writing a script is a kind of programming act and has all the advantages of programming, most particularly that it clearly shows where the progranuner's understanding and con> mand of his subject leaves off.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The human speaker contributes much to clothe ELIZA's responses in plausibility.
“The human speaker will, a~ has been said, contribute much to clothe EI,IZA'S responses h: vestmen:s of plausibility.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A technological instantiation of transference can be seen in the first chatbot developed by Weizenbaum where he observed many users confiding in ELIZA. Users projected empathy and understanding onto a program that merely mirrored their words.”
From The Psychology of the Eliza Effect: Anthropomorphism, Social Presence, and Projection in Human-AI Interaction (2025) · cites this paper as Weizenbaum (1966)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The eponymous ELIZA is a simple rules-based chatbot from the 1960's that users were found to anthropomorphize [56].”
From People cannot distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test (2025) · cites this paper as [56]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This trend has been present in the discourse for decades and has manifested itself in, for example, in the attribution of human-like qualities to the simple chatbot ELIZA (Weizenbaum, 1966;Berry, 2023) or in the anthropomorphisation of the language used to describe AI algorithms, which McDermott (1976) warned against half a century ago, and which remains problematic today (Shwartz, 2020).”
From There is no such thing as conscious artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as Weizenbaum, 1966
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, what Eliza did reveal was that humans are susceptible to projecting onto a chat bot an illusion of understanding, a valuable lesson that we should keep in mind.”
From Large Language Models and the Reverse Turing Test (2023) · cites this paper as Weizenbaum, 1966
In the citing paper
“ELIZA, developed in the 1960s, exemplified these systems by simulating a Rogerian psychotherapist through simple pattern‐matching and substitution rules”
From Charting the evolution of artificial intelligence mental health chatbots from rule‐based systems to large language models: a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“To Turing’s point, data have been gathered from independent authors, labs, and across time all illustrating the utility and potential of machines in delivering healthcare and therapy [2, 4, 6–8].”
From When ELIZA meets therapists: a Turing test for the heart and mind (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“This pattern of findings is consistent with our original hypothesis and previous research: differences in accurate identification will be close to zero [2, 7, 8].”
From When ELIZA meets therapists: a Turing test for the heart and mind (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, some potentially relevant conversational agents developed for the treatment of mental health problems were excluded from this review because of not reporting a mental health outcome measure (eg, ELIZA [2,42-44]).”
From Conversational agents in the treatment of mental health problems: mixed-method systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“The majority of reviews focus on studies from 1998 onward, thereby neglecting first papers on CAs such as well-known first text-based agent ELIZA (Weizenbaum, 1966).”
From Charting the Evolution and Future of Conversational Agents: A Research Agenda Along Five Waves and New Frontiers (2024) · cites this paper as Weizenbaum, 1966
In the citing paper
“Historically, the first chatbot was developed in 1966 by Weizenbaum (1966).”
From Charting the Evolution and Future of Conversational Agents: A Research Agenda Along Five Waves and New Frontiers (2024) · cites this paper as Weizenbaum (1966)
Citations
Cites
Weizenbaum, J. (1963) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/367593.367617 · Cited by 196
Self-citationComputer Simulation of Individual Belief Systems
Abelson, R. P., & Carroll, J. D. (1965) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/000276426500800908 · Cited by 108
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Gorn, S. Semiotic relationships in ambiguously stratified language systems. Paper presented at Int. Colloq. Algebraic Linguistics and Automatic Theory, Hebrew U. of Jerusalem, Aug. 1964.
- 10.5555/889266 · DOI
- Rogers, C. Client Centered Therapy: Current Practice, Implications and Theory. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1951.
- Yngve, J. COMIT Programming Manual. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1961.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,501–1,600 of 4,609
Junaid, M. T., Barakat, S. A., Awad, R., & Anwar, N. (2024) · Studies in big data · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-52280-2_3 · Cited by 14
Srijundaree, P., Yurayat, P., & Nipanan, P. (2024) · Islamic Guidance and Counseling Journal · doi:10.25217/0020247451200 · Cited by 14
A novel solution for the development of a sentimental analysis chatbot integrating ChatGPT
Florindi, F., Fedele, P., & Dimitri, G. M. (2024) · Personal and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1007/s00779-024-01824-6 · Cited by 14
Akyön, Ş. H., Akyön, F. Ç., Camyar, A. S., Hızlı, F., Sari, T., & Hızlı, Ş. (2024) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/59258 · Cited by 14
Informing the design of question-asking conversational agents for reflection
Karaturhan, P., Orhan, İ., Kuşçu, K., & Yantaç, A. E. (2024) · Personal and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1007/s00779-024-01831-7 · Cited by 12
Lotherington, H., Pegrum, M. A., Thumlert, K., Tomin, B., Boreland, T., & Pobuda, T. (2024) · Interactive Technology and Smart Education · doi:10.1108/itse-02-2024-0038 · Cited by 13
Joshi, R., & Bengler, K. J. (2024) · International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI) · doi:10.1145/3687272.3688297 · Cited by 12
Development of AI- and NLP-Driven Chatbots and Virtual Assistants for Mental Health Support
Punia, A., Bhakuni, P., & Sharma, N. (2025) · Advances in psychology, mental health, and behavioral studies (APMHBS) book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-9341-3.ch010 · Cited by 12
Conversational User Interfaces and Agents
Biancofiore, G. M., Palma, D. D., Pomo, C., Narducci, F., & Noia, T. D. (2025) · Human-computer interaction series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61375-3_4 · Cited by 13
Public Encounters and Government Chatbots: When Servers Talk to Citizens
Alishani, A., Homburg, V. M. F., & Velsberg, O. (2025) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.70005 · Cited by 12
Determinants of rural middle school students' adoption of AI chatbots for mental health
Li, S., Liu, L., Wang, Y., & Deng, X. (2025) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1619535 · Cited by 12
On Benchmarking Human-like Intelligence in Machines
Ying, L., Collins, K. M., Wong, L., Sucholutsky, I., Liu, R., Weller, A., Shu, T., Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2026) · Open Mind · doi:10.1162/opmi.a.385 · Cited by 39
User Information Extraction for Personalized Dialogue Systems
Hirano, T., Kobayashi, N., Higashinaka, R., Makino, T., & Matsuo, Y. (2015) · Transactions of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1527/tjsai.dsf-512 · Cited by 12
Encoding Word Confusion Networks with Recurrent Neural Networks for Dialog State Tracking
Jagfeld, G., & Vu, N. T. (2017) · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-4602 · Cited by 12
The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Development of Artificial Intelligence
Chen, S. C.-Y., & Shen, M.-C. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-13-6462-4_14 · Cited by 12
Relationships to “conversational” machines
Velkovska, J., Zouinar, M., Veyrier, C.-A., & Carey-Libbrecht, L. (2020) · Réseaux · doi:10.3917/res.220.0047 · Cited by 12
Backfiring and favouring: how design processes in HCI lead to anti-patterns and repentant designers
Widdicks, K., Pargman, D. S., & Björk, S. L. (2020) · Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3419249.3420175 · Cited by 12
A seq2seq Neural Network based Conversational Agent for Gulf Arabic Dialect
Alshareef, T. A., & Siddiqui, M. A. (2020) · International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT) · doi:10.1109/acit50332.2020.9300059 · Cited by 12
PRERONA: Mental Health Bengali Chatbot for Digital Counselling
Hussna, A. U., Laz, A. N. K., Sikder, M. S., Uddin, J., Tınmaz, H., & Esfar-E-Alam, A. M. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-68449-5_28 · Cited by 12
The lamp and the lighthouse: Joseph Weizenbaum, contextualizing the critic
Loeb, Z. (2021) · Interdisciplinary Science Reviews · doi:10.1080/03080188.2020.1840218 · Cited by 14
Designing Conversational Dashboards for Effective Use in Crisis Response
Ruoff, M., Gnewuch, U., Maedche, A., & Scheibehenne, B. (2023) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00801 · Cited by 12
Knowledge-driven Natural Language Understanding of English Text and its Applications
Basu, K., Varanasi, S. C., Shakerin, F., Arias, J., & Gupta, G. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i14.17488 · Cited by 4
Bindra, P., Kshirsagar, M., Ryan, C., Vaidya, G., Gupt, K. K., & Kshirsagar, V. (2021) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-0878-0_59 · Cited by 12
The Impact of Semi-Supervised Learning on the Performance of Intelligent Chatbot System
Uprety, S. P., & Jeong, S. R. (2021) · Computers, materials & continua/Computers, materials & continua (Print) · doi:10.32604/cmc.2022.023127 · Cited by 15
Towards Knowledge-Based Tourism Chinese Question Answering System
Li, J., Zhiyi, L., Huang, H., & Ding, Z. (2022) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math10040664 · Cited by 12
Self-Disclosure to a Robot "In-the-Wild": Category, Human Personality and Robot Identity
Neerincx, A., Edens, C., Broz, F., Li, Y., & Neerincx, M. A. (2022) · IEEE RO-MAN · doi:10.1109/ro-man53752.2022.9900566 · Cited by 12
Chaudry, B., & Islam, A. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192113794 · Cited by 12
The Impact of Governance Bots on Sense of Virtual Community
Smith, C. E., Alam, I., Tan, C., Keegan, B., & Blanchard, A. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555563 · Cited by 12
Applications of AG-Groupoids in Decision-Making via Linear Diophantine Fuzzy Sets
Yousafzai, F., Zia, M. D., Khalaf, M. M., Al-Sabri, E. H. A., & Ismail, R. (2023) · Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society · doi:10.1155/2023/3411475 · Cited by 12
Beyond Information: Is ChatGPT Empathetic Enough?
Université du Québec à Montréal, C., Belkhir, A., Sadat, F., & Université du Québec à Montréal, C. (2023) · International conference Recent advances in natural language processing · doi:10.26615/978-954-452-092-2_018 · Cited by 13
Implementation of Chatbot that Predicts an Illness Dynamically using Machine Learning Techniques
Shabari Shedthi, B., Shetty, V., Chadaga, R., Bhat, R., Preethi, B., & K., P. K. (2023) · International Journal of Engineering · doi:10.5829/ije.2024.37.02b.08 · Cited by 13
Permissibility vs. Feasibility: AI in service from a CX perspective
Giebelhausen, M. D., & Poehlman, T. A. (2023) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-06-2023-0210 · Cited by 12
Bibliometric and Systematic Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots’ Use for Language Education
Wu, T., & Yu, Z. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/6jmnst54 · Cited by 15
Dumb Meaning: Machine Learning and Artificial Semantics
Bajohr, H. (2024) · Digitale Gesellschaft · doi:10.1515/9783839469224-003 · Cited by 12
Owda, M., Bandar, Z. A., & Crockett, K. A. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22000-5_6 · Cited by 12
Using a personal assistant for exploiting service interfaces
Fuckner, M., BARTHES, J.-P. A., & Scalabrin, E. E. (2014) · International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) · doi:10.1109/cscwd.2014.6846822 · Cited by 12
GEEDI - Guards for Emotional and Explanatory DIalogues
Nothdurft, F., Bertrand, G., Heinroth, T., & Minker, W. (2010) · International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE) · doi:10.1109/ie.2010.24 · Cited by 12
Trust the Words: Insights into the Role of Language in Trust Building in a Digitalized World
Jucks, R., Linnemann, G. A., Thon, F. M., & Zimmermann, M. (2016) · Progress in IS · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_13 · Cited by 12
Autonomie und Moralität als Zuschreibung
Weber, K. (2018) · Ethik in mediatisierten Welten · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-21083-0_12 · Cited by 14
A scaled‐down neural conversational model for chatbots
Mathur, S., & Lopez, D. (2018) · Concurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/cpe.4761 · Cited by 13
Developing a Twitter bot that can join a discussion using state-of-the-art architectures
Çetinkaya, Y. M., Toroslu, İ. H., & Davulcu, H. (2020) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-020-00665-4 · Cited by 14
Improving the level of trust in human-machine conversation
Sucameli, I. (2021) · Advanced Robotics · doi:10.1080/01691864.2021.1884132 · Cited by 12
SeerahBot: An Arabic Chatbot About Prophet’s Biography
Yassin, S. M., & Khan, M. Z. (2021) · International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer Science & Technology · doi:10.21276/ijircst.2021.9.2.13 · Cited by 12
Automating the measurement of heterogeneous chatbot designs
Cañizares, P. C., Pérez-Soler, S., Guerra, E., & de Lara, J. (2022) · ACM Symposium on Applied Computing · doi:10.1145/3477314.3507255 · Cited by 12
The role of spoken feedback in experiencing multimodal interfaces as human-like
Qvarfordt, P., Jönsson, A., & Dahlbäck, N. (2003) · INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION · doi:10.1145/958432.958478 · Cited by 12
Foundations of the case for natural-language programming
Halpern, M. (1966) · AFIPS Fall Joint Computer Conference (FJCC) · doi:10.1145/1464291.1464360 · Cited by 12
Horacek, H. (1990) · Computer Physics Communications · doi:10.1016/0010-4655(90)90107-c · Cited by 12
Context-Centric Speech-Based Human-Computer Interaction
Hung, V. C., & González, A. J. (2013) · International Journal of Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1002/int.21614 · Cited by 12
Chatbot Design Method Using Hybrid Word Vector Expression Model Based on Real Telemarketing Dat
Zhang, J., Zhang, J., Ma, S., Yang, J., & Gui, G. (2020) · KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems · doi:10.3837/tiis.2020.04.001 · Cited by 13
Persuasive Conversational Agent with Persuasion Tactics
Narita, T., & Kitamura, Y. (2010) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13226-1_4 · Cited by 12
MOOC-O-Bot: Using Cognitive Technologies to Extend Knowledge Support in MOOCs
Mittal, A., Vigentini, L., Djatmiko, M., Prusty, B. G., Sharma, Y., & King, M. E. (2018) · IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering · doi:10.1109/tale.2018.8615453 · Cited by 12
Domain knowledge query conversation bots in instant messaging (IM)
Goh, O. S., Fung, C. C., & Depickere, A. A. (2008) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2008.03.055 · Cited by 12
Searle's argument is just a set of Chinese symbols
Abelson, R. P. (1980) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00005768 · Cited by 12
Abdulrahman, A., & Richards, D. (2021) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti5090056 · Cited by 11
“The earliest CA for healthcare can be dated to 1966 when Weizenbaum [48] proposed Eliza, a computer program that simulated the role of a Rogerian therapist and utilised natural language conversation with the user.”
BackgroundChatbot Experiences of Informal Language Learners: A Sentiment Analysis
Alm, A., & Nkomo, L. M. (2022) · Research Anthology on Implementing Sentiment Analysis Across Multiple Disciplines · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-6303-1.ch050 · Cited by 11
Natural language processing in veterinary pathology: A review
Stimmer, L., Kuiper, R., Polledo, L., Ressel, L., Rodriguez, J. M. M., Veiga, I. B., Williams, J. M., & Herder, V. (2025) · Veterinary Pathology · doi:10.1177/03009858251347529 · Cited by 11
A Multi-Agent Chatbot Architecture for AI-Driven Language Learning
Aleedy, M., Atwell, E., & Meshoul, S. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app151910634 · Cited by 11
Waluyo, B., & Pratiwi, D. I. (2025) · The JALT CALL Journal · doi:10.29140/jaltcall.v21n3.102884 · Cited by 11
Decision Support Systems in Architecture—A Future Perspective
Schubert, G., Bratoev, I., & Petzold, F. (2023) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings13081952 · Cited by 12
What Is Artificial Intelligence: History and Basic Definitions
Koltsakis, E., Klontzas, M. E., & Karantanas, A. H. (2023) · Imaging informatics for healthcare professionals · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-25928-9_1 · Cited by 12
21st Century Career Counseling and Artificial Intelligence Practices
Özdoğan, H. K., & Karacan-Ozdemir, N. (2023) · Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi · doi:10.53444/deubefd.1326692 · Cited by 8
Chatbot for Healthcare System Using NLP and Python
Abdullah, R. Y., Selvaraj, A. S., Nepal, ., & Harshad Ram, T. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics (SOLI) · doi:10.1109/soli57430.2022.10294817 · Cited by 11
A survey of autonomous monitoring systems in mental health
Gopalakrishnan, A., Gururajan, R., Zhou, X., Venkataraman, R., Chan, K. C., & Higgins, N. (2024) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.1527 · Cited by 11
AI Based Chatbot for Healthcare using Machine Learning
Tanwar, P., Bansal, K., Sharma, A. D., & Dagar, N. (2023) · International Conference on Advances in Computation, Communication and Information Technology (ICAICCIT) · doi:10.1109/icaiccit60255.2023.10465728 · Cited by 11
An Empathic GPT-Based Chatbot to Talk About Mental Disorders With Spanish Teenagers
Mármol-Romero, A. M., Garcı́a-Vega, M., Cumbreras, M. Á. G., & Montejo‐Ráez, A. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2344355 · Cited by 13
Empowering Learners: Chatbot-Mediated 'Learning-by-Teaching'
Sabnis, N., & Nagashima, T. (2024) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3613905.3650754 · Cited by 11
Jacobs, O. L. E., Pazhoohi, F., & Kingstone, A. F. (2024) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2024.103733 · Cited by 14
Artificial intelligence in teaching social disciplines: Opportunities and challenges of tools
Lobanova, A., Hrabovets, I. V., Приходько, О. О., Каритка, В. В., Kalashnikova, L. V., & Chernous, L. (2024) · Educational Technology Quarterly · doi:10.55056/etq.813 · Cited by 11
Jurišević, N., Gordić, D., Nikolić, D., Nešović, A., & Kowalik, R. (2024) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings14124038 · Cited by 11
AI-enabled social support chatbot usage: flowing ambivalence and liminalities
Kéfi, H., Khelladi, I., Mani, Z., & Veg-Sala, N. (2024) · Journal of Decision System · doi:10.1080/12460125.2024.2443226 · Cited by 11
Cao, B., & Wen, C. (2025) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2025.102263 · Cited by 12
Yapay Zeka ve Eğitim: Güncel Uygulamalar ve Gelecek Perspektifleri
Temur, S. (2025) · Trakya Üniversitesi sosyal bilimler dergisi/Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler dergisi · doi:10.26468/trakyasobed.1539210 · Cited by 11
Yusuf, H., Money, A., & Daylamani-Zad, D. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13755-7 · Cited by 14
The future of personalized learning with AI
Plass, J. L., & Froehlich, F. (2025) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102813 · Cited by 14
Bridgeman, B. (1980) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00005781 · Cited by 11
Wenn Algorithmen für uns entscheiden: Chancen und Risiken der künstlichen Intelligenz
Christen, M., Mader, C., Čas, J., Abou‐Chadi, T., Bernstein, A., Binder, N. B., Dell’Aglio, D., Fabbian, L., George, D., Gohdes, A., et al. (2020) · vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich eBooks · doi:10.1553/10.3218/4002-9 · Cited by 13
Li, C.-Y., Ortega, D., Väth, D., Lux, F., Vanderlyn, L., Schmidt, M., Neumann, M., Völkel, M., Denisov, P., Jenne, S., et al. (2020) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations (ACL Demo) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-demos.31 · Cited by 11
Embodiment matters: toward culture-specific robotized counselling
Sakurai, E., Kurashige, K., Tsuruta, S., Sakurai, Y., Knauf, R., Damiani, E., Kutics, A., & Frati, F. (2020) · Journal of Reliable Intelligent Environments · doi:10.1007/s40860-020-00109-y · Cited by 13
Comparing users' perception of different chatbot interaction paradigms
Valério, F. A. M., Guimarães, T. G., Prates, R. O., & Candello, H. C. D. S. P. (2020) · Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (IHC) · doi:10.1145/3424953.3426501 · Cited by 11
Farah, J. C., Sharma, V., Ingram, S., & Gillet, D. (2021) · International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI) · doi:10.1145/3472307.3484677 · Cited by 11
Semantic-aware conditional variational autoencoder for one-to-many dialogue generation
Wang, Y., Liao, J., Yu, H. Z., & Leng, J. (2022) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-022-07182-9 · Cited by 11
An approach to the classification of educational chatbots
Urquiza-Yllescas, J. F., Mendoza, S., Rodríguez, J., & Sánchez-Adame, L. M. (2022) · Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems · doi:10.3233/jifs-213275 · Cited by 11
Comparative Analysis and Development of Voice-based Chatbot System for Differently-abled
Jain, A., & Bhati, P. (2022) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2273/1/012003 · Cited by 11
English and Arabic Chatbots: A Systematic Literature Review
Alsheddi, A. S., & Al-Henaki, L. (2022) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2022.0130876 · Cited by 13
Ma, Y., Abdelrahman, Y., Petz, B., Drewes, H., Alt, F., Hußmann, H., & Butz, A. M. (2022) · Mensch und Computer (MuC) · doi:10.1145/3543758.3543776 · Cited by 11
Enhancement of Question Answering System Accuracy via Transfer Learning and BERT
Duan, K., Du, S., Zhang, Y., Lin, Y.-R., Wu, H., & Zhang, Q. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app122211522 · Cited by 12
Features requirement elicitation process for designing a chatbot application
Johari, N. M., Nohuddin, P. N. E., Baharin, A. H. A., Yakob, N. A., & Ebadi, M. J. (2022) · IET Networks · doi:10.1049/ntw2.12071 · Cited by 11
Information quality of conversational agents in healthcare
Liu, C., Zowghi, D., Peng, G., & Kong, S. (2023) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/02666669231172434 · Cited by 11
Dialog generation for Arabic chatbot
Youness, F., Madkour, M. A., & Elshenawy, A. (2023) · International Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s41870-023-01519-w · Cited by 11
Welskop, W. (2023) · International Journal of New Economics and Social Sciences · doi:10.5604/01.3001.0053.9601 · Cited by 11
A Web-Based Real Time Chat Application for User Friendly Interaction
Rawat, V., Jain, P., Tomar, A., Guzar, P., Negi, V., & Gupta, V. K. (2024) · International Conference on Advanced Computing and Emerging Technologies (ACET) · doi:10.1109/acet61898.2024.10730503 · Cited by 11
Morie, J. F., Chance, E., Haynes, K., & Rajpurohit, D. (2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32323-2_4 · Cited by 11
Social Interaction With Computers
Pruijt, H. (2006) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/0894439306287247 · Cited by 11
Apolinário-Hagen, J., & Tasseit, S. (2015) · International Journal of Health Professions · doi:10.1515/ijhp-2015-0010 · Cited by 11
Human-Like Computing and Human–Computer Interaction
Dix, A. J., & Talis (2016) · Electronic workshops in computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/hci2016.71 · Cited by 11
Student Evaluations of a (Rude) Spoken Dialogue System Insights from an Experimental Study
Jucks, R., Linnemann, G. A., & Brummernhenrich, B. (2018) · Advances in Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1155/2018/8406187 · Cited by 11
Generative Indonesian Conversation Model using Recurrent Neural Network with Attention Mechanism
Chowanda, A., & Chowanda, A. D. (2018) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.194 · Cited by 11
Zhao, T., & Kawahara, T. (2019) · Computer Speech & Language · doi:10.1016/j.csl.2019.03.001 · Cited by 11
Corcoran, C. M., Benavides, C., & Cecchi, G. (2019) · Psychiatric Annals · doi:10.3928/00485713-20190411-01 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Weizenbaum, J.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Weizenbaum, Joseph
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 1966-01-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 36-45
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W4236521339
- Cited by
- 4,452
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 450 · 2025: 576 · 2024: 524 · 2023: 465 · 2022: 298 · 2021: 310 · 2020: 245 · 2019: 231 · 2018: 197 · 2017: 103 · 2016: 109 · 2015: 63 · 2014: 100 · 2013: 75 · 2012: 44
- FWCI
- 10.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Office of Naval Research
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Keywords
- Eliza, natural language conversation, human-computer interaction, decomposition rules, response generation, script editing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
