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 201–300 of 4,609
Sison, A. J. G., Daza, M. T., Gozalo-Brizuela, R., & Garrido-Merchán, E. C. (2024) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2225931 · Cited by 169
Rathnayaka, P., Mills, N., Burnett, D., Silva, D. D., Alahakoon, D., & Gray, R. J. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22103653 · Cited by 169
Conversational Agents: Goals, Technologies, Vision and Challenges
Allouch, M., Azaria, A., & Azoulay, R. (2021) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s21248448 · Cited by 168
Privacy nudges for social media
Wang, Y., Leon, P. G., Scott, K., Chen, X., Acquisti, A., & Cranor, L. F. (2013) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/2487788.2488038 · Cited by 168
Let’s Have a Chat! A Conversation with ChatGPT: Technology, Applications, and Limitations
Shahriar, S., & Hayawi, K. (2023) · Artificial Intelligence and Applications · doi:10.47852/bonviewaia3202939 · Cited by 167
1. Introduction to natural language processing
(2014) · Natural language processing · doi:10.1075/nlp.11.01ch1 · Cited by 167
Let's have a chat! A Conversation with ChatGPT: Technology, Applications, and Limitations
Shahriar, S., & Hayawi, K. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13817 · Cited by 167
The Cognitive Bases of Anthropomorphism: From Relatedness to Empathy
Airenti, G. (2015) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-014-0263-x · Cited by 181
ChatGPT for e-Tourism: a technological perspective
Mich, L., & Garigliano, R. (2023) · Information Technology & Tourism · doi:10.1007/s40558-023-00248-x · Cited by 177
Utilization of Self-Diagnosis Health Chatbots in Real-World Settings: Case Study
Fan, X., Chao, D., Zhang, Z., Wang, D., Li, X., & Tian, F. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/19928 · Cited by 164
Finding love in algorithms: deciphering the emotional contexts of close encounters with AI chatbots
Li, H. Z., & Zhang, R. (2024) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmae015 · Cited by 186
AI-based chatbots in conversational commerce and their effects on product and price perceptions
Sidlauskiene, J., Joye, Y., & Auruškevičienė, V. (2023) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-023-00633-8 · Cited by 163
Malhotra, A. K., Thomas, J. C., Carroll, J. M., & Miller, L. A. (1980) · International Journal of Man-Machine Studies · doi:10.1016/s0020-7373(80)80013-7 · Cited by 163
How educational chatbots support self-regulated learning? A systematic review of the literature
Guan, R., Raković, M., Chen, G., & Gašević, D. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12881-y · Cited by 182
Literacy in the Time of Artificial Intelligence
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2024) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1002/rrq.591 · Cited by 197
Nickerson, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1997) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-044481862-1.50067-4 · Cited by 162
Hill, R. K. (2015) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-014-0184-5 · Cited by 161
Conversational AI: Dialogue Systems, Conversational Agents, and Chatbots
McTear, M. (2021) · Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02176-3 · Cited by 155
Schuetzler, R. M., Giboney, J. S., Grimes, G. M., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2018) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2018.08.011 · Cited by 154
“Early implementations of CAs were novelties designed to play speci fi c roles such as the Rogerian psychotherapist ELIZA [2], and PARRY — a paranoid patient [3].”
BackgroundTracing the evolution of AI in the past decade and forecasting the emerging trends
Shao, Z., Zhao, R., Yuan, S., Ding, M., & Wang, Y. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118221 · Cited by 153
CSIEC: A computer assisted English learning chatbot based on textual knowledge and reasoning
Jia, J. (2009) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2008.09.001 · Cited by 153
Searle, J. R. (1980) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00006038 · Cited by 153
Three Myths of Computer Science
Moor, J. H. (1978) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1093/bjps/29.3.213 · Cited by 152
Alhuwaydi, A. M. (2024) · Risk Management and Healthcare Policy · doi:10.2147/rmhp.s461562 · Cited by 159
Different measurements metrics to evaluate a chatbot system
Shawar, B. A., & Atwell, E. (2007) · doi:10.3115/1556328.1556341 · Cited by 151
Technical metrics used to evaluate health care chatbots: scoping review
Abd-Alrazaq, A., Safi, Z., Alajlani, M., Warren, J., Househ, M., & Denecke, K. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/18301 · Cited by 150
Stephens, T. N., Joerin, A., Rauws, M., & Werk, L. N. (2019) · Translational Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1093/tbm/ibz043 · Cited by 150
Finding Love in Algorithms: Deciphering the Emotional Contexts of Close Encounters with AI Chatbots
Li, H., & Zhang, R. (2024) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/xd4k7 · Cited by 150
Anthropomorphic Information Systems
Pfeuffer, N., Benlian, A., Gimpel, H., & Hinz, O. F. (2019) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-019-00599-y · Cited by 161
Gender affordances of conversational agents
Brahnam, S., & Angeli, A. D. (2012) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2012.05.001 · Cited by 158
KBot: A Knowledge Graph Based ChatBot for Natural Language Understanding Over Linked Data
Ait‐Mlouk, A., & Jiang, L. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3016142 · Cited by 148
Will ChatGPT Get You Caught? Rethinking of Plagiarism Detection
Khalil, M., & Er, E. (2023) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-34411-4_32 · Cited by 146
Natural language question-answering systems: 1969
Simmons, R. F. (1970) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/361953.361963 · Cited by 148
The ‘causal power’ of machines
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1980) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0000594x · Cited by 146
Chatbots and conversational agents: A bibliometric analysis
Io, H. N., & Lee, C. B. (2017) · IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) · doi:10.1109/ieem.2017.8289883 · Cited by 159
Jeon, J., Lee, S., & Choi, S. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2204343 · Cited by 143
Skjuve, M. B., Haugstveit, I. M., Følstad, A., & Brandtzæg, P. B. (2019) · Human Technology · doi:10.17011/ht/urn.201902201607 · Cited by 143
Artificial intelligence and professional roles
Tredinnick, L. (2017) · Business Information Review · doi:10.1177/0266382117692621 · Cited by 142
Schlesinger, A., O'Hara, K. P., & Taylor, A. S. (2018) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173889 · Cited by 150
Building a Chatbot with Serverless Computing
Yan, M., Castro, P., Cheng, P., & Ishakian, V. (2016) · doi:10.1145/3007203.3007217 · Cited by 141
I hate you! Disinhibition with virtual partners
Angeli, A. D., & Brahnam, S. (2008) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2008.02.004 · Cited by 140
Davis, N., Hsiao, C.-P., Yashraj Singh, K., Li, L., & Magerko, B. (2016) · Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/2856767.2856795 · Cited by 138
If I Hear You Correctly: Building and Evaluating Interview Chatbots with Active Listening Skills
Xiao, Z., Zhou, M. X., Chen, W., Yang, H., & Chi, C. (2020) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376131 · Cited by 156
Contextual understanding by computers
Weizenbaum, J. (1967) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/363534.363545 · Cited by 137
Self-citationArtificial intelligence in medicine: what is it doing for us today?
Becker, A. (2019) · Health Policy and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2019.03.004 · Cited by 137
Designing a Chatbot for a Brief Motivational Interview on Stress Management: Qualitative Case Study
Park, S., Choi, J., Lee, S., Oh, C., Kim, C., La, S., Lee, J., & Suh, B. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/12231 · Cited by 137
Depounti, I., Saukko, P., & Natale, S. (2023) · Media, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/01634437221119021 · Cited by 128
Artificial Intelligence and User Experience in reciprocity: Contributions and state of the art
Virvou, M. K. (2023) · Intelligent Decision Technologies · doi:10.3233/idt-230092 · Cited by 137
Disruptive business value models in the digital era
Sewpersadh, N. S. (2023) · Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1186/s13731-022-00252-1 · Cited by 156
A Survey on Recent Advances in LLM-Based Multi-turn Dialogue Systems
Yi, Z., Ouyang, J., Xu, Z., Liu, Y., Liao, T., Luo, H., & Shen, Y. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3771090 · Cited by 240
Multi-Representation Fusion Network for Multi-Turn Response Selection in Retrieval-Based Chatbots
Tao, C., Wu, W., Xu, C., Hu, W., Zhao, D., & Yan, R. (2019) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/3289600.3290985 · Cited by 135
Detecting AI-generated essays: the ChatGPT challenge
Cingillioglu, I. (2023) · International Journal of Information and Learning Technology · doi:10.1108/ijilt-03-2023-0043 · Cited by 135
Towards human-like spoken dialogue systems
Edlund, J., Gustafson, J., Heldner, M., & Hjalmarsson, A. (2008) · Speech Communication · doi:10.1016/j.specom.2008.04.002 · Cited by 135
Designing Personality-Adaptive Conversational Agents for Mental Health Care
Ahmad, R., Siemon, D., Gnewuch, U., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2022) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-022-10254-9 · Cited by 134
Can machines talk? Comparison of Eliza with modern dialogue systems
Shah, H., Warwick, K., Vallverdú, J., & Wu, D. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.004 · Cited by 133
A Survey on Evaluation Methods for Chatbots
Maroengsit, W., Piyakulpinyo, T., Phonyiam, K., Pongnumkul, S., Chaovalit, P., & Theeramunkong, T. (2019) · International Conference on Information and Education Technology (ICIET) · doi:10.1145/3323771.3323824 · Cited by 133
Generative AI Prompt Engineering for Educators: Practical Strategies
Park, J., & Choo, S. (2024) · Journal of Special Education Technology · doi:10.1177/01626434241298954 · Cited by 159
Large language models pass a standard three-party Turing test
Jones, C. R., & Bergen, B. K. (2026) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2524472123 · Cited by 236
Designing emotionally sentient agents
McDuff, D., & Czerwinski, M. (2018) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3186591 · Cited by 132
Perceiving artificial social agents
Holtgraves, T. M., Ross, S. J., Weywadt, C. R., & Han, T. L. (2007) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.02.017 · Cited by 131
Influence of Rapport and Social Presence with an AI Psychotherapy Chatbot on Users’ Self-Disclosure
Lee, J., Lee, D., & Lee, J.-G. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2146227 · Cited by 130
Asimov's laws of robotics: Implications for information technology. 2
Clarke, R. (1994) · Computer · doi:10.1109/2.248881 · Cited by 130
Følstad, A., Skjuve, M. B., & Brandtzæg, P. B. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17705-8_13 · Cited by 142
Challenges in Chatbot Development
Abdellatif, A., Costa, D. E., Badran, K., Abdalkareem, R., & Shihab, E. (2020) · International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) · doi:10.1145/3379597.3387472 · Cited by 129
Technical Aspects of Developing Chatbots for Medical Applications: Scoping Review
Safi, Z., Abd-Alrazaq, A. A., Khalifa, M., & Househ, M. S. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/19127 · Cited by 129
Lukić, A., Kudelić, N., Antičević, V., Mosler, E. L., Gluncić, V., Hren, D., & Lukić, I. K. (2023) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103735 · Cited by 129
Trends in Integration of Vision and Language Research: A Survey of Tasks, Datasets, and Methods
Mogadala, A., Kalimuthu, M., & Klakow, D. (2021) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.11688 · Cited by 146
Improving the human factors aspect of database interactions
Shneiderman, B. (1978) · ACM Transactions on Database Systems · doi:10.1145/320289.320295 · Cited by 128
Understanding Chatbot-mediated Task Management
Toxtli, C., Monroy-Hernández, A., & Cranshaw, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173632 · Cited by 127
Schöbel, S., Schmitt, A., Benner, D., Saqr, M., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2024) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-023-10375-9 · Cited by 127
Impact of office layout on communication in a science‐driven business
Boutellier, R., Ullman, F., Schreiber, J. V., & Naef, R. (2008) · R and D Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00524.x · Cited by 127
If software is narrative: Joseph Weizenbaum, artificial intelligence and the biographies of ELIZA
Natale, S. (2019) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444818804980 · Cited by 126
MANDY: Towards a Smart Primary Care Chatbot Application
Ni, L., Lu, C., Liu, N., & Liu, J. (2017) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-6989-5_4 · Cited by 126
Dahlkemper, M. N., Lahme, S. Z., & Klein, P. (2023) · Physical Review Physics Education Research · doi:10.1103/physrevphyseducres.19.010142 · Cited by 149
The use of artificial intelligence in psychotherapy: development of intelligent therapeutic systems
Spytska, L. V. (2025) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-025-02491-9 · Cited by 126
Tell me more designing HRI to encourage more trust, disclosure, and companionship
Martelaro, N., Nneji, V. C., Ju, W., & Hinds, P. (2016) · 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1109/hri.2016.7451750 · Cited by 124
Conversational Information Seeking
Zamani, H., Trippas, J. R., Dalton, J., & Radlinski, F. (2023) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000081 · Cited by 178
Parreira, A., Lehmann, L. D. M. E. S., & de Oliveira, M. T. (2021) · Ensaio Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação · doi:10.1590/s0104-40362020002803115 · Cited by 123
Gaffney, H., Mansell, W., Edwards, R., & Wright, J. (2014) · Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1017/s135246581300060x · Cited by 122
Making Sense of Group Chat through Collaborative Tagging and Summarization
Zhang, A. X., & Cranshaw, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3274465 · Cited by 138
Error weighted semi-coupled hidden Markov model for audio-visual emotion recognition
Lin, J.-C., Wu, C.-H., & Wei, W.-L. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Multimedia · doi:10.1109/tmm.2011.2171334 · Cited by 121
TOWARDS OPTIMIZING ENTERTAINMENT IN COMPUTER GAMES
Yannakakis, G. N., & Hallam, J. C. T. (2007) · Applied Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1080/08839510701527580 · Cited by 121
Chatbot as an Intelligent Personal Assistant for Mobile Language Learning
Pham, X. L., Phạm, T. H., Nguyen, Q. M., Nguyen, T. H., & Cao, T. T. H. (2018) · International Conference on Education and E-Learning (ICEEL) · doi:10.1145/3291078.3291115 · Cited by 121
Mühlhoff, R. (2019) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444819885334 · Cited by 131
Savage, S., Monroy‐Hernández, A., & Höllerer, T. (2016) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/2818048.2819985 · Cited by 120
The generative era of medical AI
Fahrner, J., Chen, E., Topol, E. J., & Rajpurkar, P. (2025) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2025.05.018 · Cited by 120
Hua, Y., Siddals, S., Ma, Z., Galatzer‐Levy, I., Xia, W., Hau, C., Na, H., Flathers, M., Linardon, J., Ayubcha, C., et al. (2025) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.21352 · Cited by 117
Floridi, L., Taddeo, M., & Turilli, M. (2008) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-008-9130-6 · Cited by 117
Dibitonto, M., Leszczynska, K., Tazzi, F., & Medaglia, C. M. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91250-9_9 · Cited by 117
Target-Guided Open-Domain Conversation
Tang, J., Zhao, T., Xiong, C., Liang, X., Xing, E. P., & Hu, Z. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1565 · Cited by 117
Liao, Q. V., Mas-ud Hussain, M., Chandar, P., Davis, M., Khazaeni, Y., Crasso, M. P., Wang, D., Muller, M., Shami, N. S., & Geyer, W. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173577 · Cited by 116
Almahri, F. A. A. J., Bell, D., & Merhi, M. (2020) · International Conference on Information Management · doi:10.1109/icim49319.2020.244712 · Cited by 116
Youkui, W., Zhang, N., & Zhao, X. (2020) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/0894439320980132 · Cited by 116
A source activation theory of working memory: cross-task prediction of performance in ACT-R
Lovett, M. C., Daily, L. Z., & Reder, L. M. (2000) · Cognitive Systems Research · doi:10.1016/s1389-0417(99)00012-1 · Cited by 116
From Treatment to Healing:Envisioning a Decolonial Digital Mental Health
Pendse, S. R., Nkemelu, D., Bidwell, N. J., Jadhav, S., Pathare, S., De Choudhury, M., & Kumar, N. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501982 · Cited by 115
Ziemke, T., & Sharkey, N. E. (2001) · Semiotica · doi:10.1515/semi.2001.050 · Cited by 115
The computational therapeutic: exploring Weizenbaum’s ELIZA as a history of the present
Bassett, C. (2018) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-018-0825-9 · Cited by 114
Opposing Effects of Response Time in Human–Chatbot Interaction
Gnewuch, U., Morana, S., Adam, M. T. P., & Maedche, A. (2022) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-022-00755-x · Cited by 126
Large Language Model‐Based Chatbots in Higher Education
Yigci, D., Eryilmaz, M., Yetisen, A. K., Tasoglu, S., & Ozcan, A. (2025) · Advanced Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1002/aisy.202400429 · Cited by 113
Artificially intelligent conversational agents in libraries
Rubin, V. L., Chen, Y., & Thorimbert, L. M. (2010) · Library Hi Tech · doi:10.1108/07378831011096196 · Cited by 113
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
