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 3,901–4,000 of 4,609
(2014) · Linguistic approaches to literature · doi:10.1075/lal.16.prelim
(2014) · Linguistic approaches to literature · doi:10.1075/lal.16.poem
(2014) · Linguistic approaches to literature · doi:10.1075/lal.16.intro
(2014) · Linguistic approaches to literature · doi:10.1075/lal.16.04ch3
(2014) · Linguistic approaches to literature · doi:10.1075/lal.16.toc
Barakat, H. E., & Halim, I. T. A. (2024) · Advances in wireless technologies and telecommunication book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-1132-6.ch007
Tsunomori, Y., & Higashinaka, R. (2024) · Journal of Natural Language Processing · doi:10.5715/jnlp.31.1635
Exploring the frontier of language-associated artificial intelligence in management
Perez, G., Barbosa, V., Pinochet, L. H. C., Coelho, R. L. F., & de Moraes, G. H. S. M. (2024) · RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie · doi:10.1590/1678-6971/eramd240400 · Cited by 1
Singler, B., & Watts, F. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009031721.015
Design and Implementation of an Intelligent Web Service Agent Based on Seq2Seq and Website Crawler
Hsih, M.-H., Yang, J. Y., & Hsieh, C.-C. (2024) · Information · doi:10.3390/info15120818
‘A happier, healthier you’: Fair Play and the promise of a future self
Kagen, M. (2024) · Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds · doi:10.1386/jgvw_00103_1
RFM Analizi ile Müşteri Segmentasyonu: Bir Mali Müşavirlik Firması Örneği
BAYNAL, K., & Erek, E. Z. (2024) · Özgür Yayınları eBooks · doi:10.58830/ozgur.pub574.c2356
Bibliyometrik Verilerle Eğitimde Sohbet Robotları
Ediz, Ç., & Kibar, A. (2024) · Özgür Yayınları eBooks · doi:10.58830/ozgur.pub574.c2355
Prediction of Early Quitting Students in a Speed-Reading Course
Kabasakal, İ. (2024) · Özgür Yayınları eBooks · doi:10.58830/ozgur.pub574.c2357
A Critical Examination of Searle's Chinese Room Thought Experiment
Tian, Z. (2024) · Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences · doi:10.54097/5ndhj529
Customer Support Chat Bot with ML
REDDY, A. P. K., RAJU, M. P., & ACHARYA, A. R. (2025) · INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT · doi:10.55041/ijsrem40571
Inteligencia Artificial y sus subcampos de estudio: una revisión histórica
Agreda, Z. Y. S. (2024) · Revista peruana de computación y sistemas · doi:10.15381/rpcs.v6i2.28857
Introduction to Natural Language Understanding
Han, S. C., Weld, H., Li, Y., Lee, J., & Poon, J. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-74364-1_1
Intelligent virtual characters, AGI, and the future of Metaverse
Virk, R. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21996-2.00008-5
Does Extensive Chatbot Interaction Affect Human Relationships?
Sterling, L. (2025) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1008816
Réalité virtuelle, intelligence artificielle et métaverses en santé mentale
Malbos, É. (2025) · Soins Cadres · doi:10.1016/j.scad.2024.12.009
Three Essays on Artificial Intelligence Adoption and Use
Nguyen, Q. (2019) · University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) · doi:10.12794/metadc1538732
Ertel, W. (2025) · Computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-44955-1_1
Reliable Conversational Agents under ASP Control that Understand Natural Language
Zeng, Y. (2025) · Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science · doi:10.4204/eptcs.416.41
A Novel Hindi Voice-Based Assistant System Architecture For E-Commerce
Kujur, A. P., & Fahad, M. S. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-81342-9_2
Whitsett, L. (2025) · Leonardo · doi:10.1162/leon_a_02679
Dabas, D., Singh, S., Aggarwal, N., & ., P. (2025) · Journal of Information and Knowledge · doi:10.17821/srels/2025/v62i1/171668
Counseling Training, Practice, and Supervision Using Avatars
Williamson, J. N., & Williamson, D. G. (2025) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394347346.ch7
The Application of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technology in Conversational Robots
Yen, Y.-Y., Tsai, C.-Y., & Kao, J. (2025) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-2395-2_44
Romero, N. R. R., & Cordero-Torres, B. P. (2025) · LATAM Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades · doi:10.56712/latam.v6i1.3520
Tracing the Development and Influence of Chatbots in Contemporary Healthcare Systems
Khan, A., Zeb, I., & Fang, S. (2025) · Advances in medical technologies and clinical practice book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-3112-5.ch005
bin Yusuf, Y. L., & Saee, S. B. (2025) · Acta Informatica Pragensia · doi:10.18267/j.aip.263
Jadhav, S. B., & Bhanudas, K. D. (2025) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/5.0254346
Arisa Nest – Uma Plataforma Baseada na Nuvem para Desenvolvimento de Assistentes Virtuais
Zambiasi, S. P., & Rabelo, R. J. (2019) · Anais do Workshop-Escola de Sistemas de Agentes, seus Ambientes e Aplicações (WESAAC) · doi:10.5753/wesaac.2019.33350
The Mis/Dis-Information Problem Is Hard to Solve
Hagen, G., Safavi–Naini, R., & Yung, M. M. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-83490-5_12
Xia, W., & Li, W. (2025) · European Journal of Communication · doi:10.1177/02673231251325937
(2025) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478060529-005
(2025) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478060529-003
(2025) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478060529-002
Could AI Become Neurodivergent?
(2025) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478060529-004
Introduction: Deep Machines and Surfaces of Experience
Munster, A. (2025) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478060529-001
(2025) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478060529-008
(2025) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478060529-009
(2025) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478060529-006
РОЛЬ ШТУЧНОГО ІНТЕЛЕКТУ В РОЗВИТКУ МУЗИЧНОЇ ІНФОРМАТИКИ
Гончар, О. (2025) · Вісник науки та освіти · doi:10.52058/2786-6165-2025-2(32)-926-938
Ludwig Wittgenstein et Albert Camus: du ‘jeu de langage’ à la ‘création corrigée’
Dalmas, F. (2025) · Neophilologus · doi:10.1007/s11061-025-09830-6
The Author’s Intention in the Context of Empathy
Agosta, L. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-75064-9_7
EduGorilla: Gen AI for educational content creation
Sinha, R. K., & Kumar, P. (2025) · Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases · doi:10.1177/20438869251328998
Strippel, C. (2025) · Medien, Kultur, Kommunikation · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-47029-6_6
Seq2seq-Based Generative Chatbot
Qi, Y., & Zhang, J. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-3161-2_22
What's in a Name? Anti-Humanism and the AI Claim
das Neves, J. C. (2025) · SpringerBriefs in philosophy · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-85478-1_7
Mind-Balance: AI-Powered Mental Health Assistant
B, H. J. R., yashaswini, M., Malik, Y., yogashree, B. S., & vinay, V. (2025) · Computer Science & Engineering An International Journal · doi:10.5121/cseij.2025.15117
Introducing Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Social Research
Christou, P. (2025) · CABI eBooks · doi:10.1079/9781800626607.0001
Avloniti, A. (2025) · CABI eBooks · doi:10.1079/9781800626607.0017
Artificial Intelligence—Hype or Myth? Philosophical Aspects of an Entrepreneurial Success Story
Zimmerli, W. C. (2025) · Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-45544-6_14
Sun'iy intellekt asosida til o‘rgatish tizimlari
Qizi, T. R. O. (2025) · doi:10.47689/zttctoi-vol1-iss1-pp122-124
Why Bring Science to the Forefront?
Hurlburt, G. F. (2025) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2025.3544117
Sztuczne inteligencje i biologiczne mózgi
Durka, P. J. (2025) · Postępy Fizyki · doi:10.61947/uw.pf.2025.76.1.3-12
Shank, D. B. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-86061-4_6
Effortless In-Vehicle Task-Oriented Dialogue: Enhancing Natural and Efficient Interactions
Du, H., Li, S., Dai, Y., & Wang, H. (2025) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3706599.3719799
[DC] Conversational Agents for Natural Human-Computer Interaction in Virtual Reality
Bosco, M. (2025) · IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW) · doi:10.1109/vrw66409.2025.00434
AI and Mathematical Understanding: ChatGPT Goes to School
Danesi, M., & Neuman, Y. (2025) · Mathematics in mind · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-80696-4_3
(2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-3-437-21835-4.00116-5
Introduction à l’intelligence artificielle en santé
Wajsbürt, P. (2025) · Médecine de Catastrophe - Urgences Collectives · doi:10.1016/j.pxur.2025.04.003 · Cited by 1
AI-POWERED TASK AUTOMATION AND ASSISTANCE ON LINUX
Rawat, A., Chaprana, K., Kumari, K., & Aggarwal, R. (2024) · International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH · doi:10.29121/granthaalayah.v12.i12.2024.6117
Artificial Intelligence Tools and Use Cases in Corporate Finance
Ajape, M. K., & Adegbayibi, A. T. (2025) · Contributions to finance and accounting · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-87368-3_9
Decision Making Process and AI
Tarakçı, İ. E. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-8769-6.ch004
Coaguila, M. E., Nina, M. M., Arocutipa, Y. D., Velásquez, E. D., Rocca, J. E., & Alanoca, H. A. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-91428-7_13
Leveraging Pre-trained Language Models for Mongolian Intent Classification and Slot Filling
Yu, L., Kong, G., & Zhang, H. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-5123-8_3
Alan's Speakeasy - An Ecosystem for the Evaluation of Conversational Agents
Rossetto, L., Sarasua, C., Inel, O., Bermeo, J. D., Orozco, P. S. B., Devimeux, H., Duan, H.-Y., Hany, R., Kyriakou, A., Ramasamy, D., et al. (2025) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3701716.3715165
León, F., Chanti, D. A., Champagnac, A., Dupoy, M., Caplier, A., Duraffourg, L., & Saintigny, P. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-84539-0_2
Demailly, L. (2025) · Nouvelle revue de psychosociologie · doi:10.3917/nrp.039.0207
Conversational Agent Design: A Comprehensive Analysis of Research from Leading Conferences
Aktaş, N. B., & Akbıyık, A. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88705-5_9
Automating Dialogue Evaluation: LLMs Vs Human Judgment
Ike, E., Takeuchi, J., Joublin, F., Ceravola, A., & Tanti, M. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93415-5_21 · Cited by 1
My Digital 'Friend': Response Machine or Conversational Companion?
Segal, T. (2025) · QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.257422
Künstliche Intelligenz im Kontext des organisationalen Wandels
Kanis, T., & Stumpf-Wollersheim, J. (2025) · Forum Dienstleistungsmanagement · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-48325-8_15
Generative AI in Legal Practice: Applications, Challenges, and Ethical ConsiderationsPreprint
Joshi, S. (2025) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202506.0457.v1
E-Learning Adoption and Use in Higher Education
Maune, A. (2025) · International Journal of African Higher Education · doi:10.6017/ijahe.v11i3.18053
Transforming Education: The Potential of Generative AI Tools for Improving Learning Experience
Finco, M. D., Dantas, V. R., Queiroz, L. R. D. C., & Calado, M. D. L. (2025) · Springer series on cultural computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-86551-0_5
(2025) · Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht eBooks · doi:10.13109/9783666408717.167
Enhancing Domain-Specific Interactions in Large Language Models
Panagoulias, D. P., Tsihrintzis, G. A., & Virvou, M. K. (2025) · Learning and analytics in intelligent systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-90174-4_8
Natural Language Understanding in Conversational AI: From Foundations to Applications
Natarajan, G. (2025) · World Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology and Sciences · doi:10.30574/wjaets.2025.15.3.1105
Exploring the Research Landscape of Generative AI: A Bibliometric and Content Analysis
Crupi, A., Costa, A., & Amanti, A. (2025) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-83549-105-820251002
A Dialogue System for Emotional Support Based on a Heterogeneous Neural Network
Zhang, J., & Zhou, Y. (2024) · International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing and Communications (IUCC) · doi:10.1109/iucc65928.2024.00119
Fine-Tuning OpenAI GPT Chatbot in Western Saudi Dialect: A Case Study of Taibah University
Alhujaili, M., & Abdulrahman, R. (2025) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2025.0160632
Aspect-Oriented Opinion Extraction with LoRA Fine-Tuning and Prompt
Yanagimoto, H., Kisaku, I., & Hashimoto, K. (2024) · IIAI International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI) · doi:10.1109/iiai-aai-winter65925.2024.00021
Wie hätte Joseph Weizenbaum die aktuellen Entwicklungen kommentiert?
Martens, A., Düwel, Y., & Dellwing, F. (2025) · Ars digitalis · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-45839-3_4
Basic insights into large language models (LLMs)
Nayyar, A., Vairamani, A. D., & Kaswan, K. S. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-33904-2.00014-8
Kotseruba, I., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192844835.002.0005
Kotseruba, I., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192844835.002.0007
Kotseruba, I., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192844835.003.0007
Kotseruba, I., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192844835.003.0001
Taxonomies of Cognitive Architectures
Kotseruba, I., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192844835.003.0004
Practical Applications of Cognitive Architectures
Kotseruba, I., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192844835.003.0010
Cognitive Architectures, AI, and Cognitive Science
Kotseruba, I., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192844835.003.0003
Kotseruba, I., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192844835.002.0004
Kotseruba, I., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192844835.003.0008
Challenges of the Past and Opportunities Ahead
Kotseruba, I., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192844835.003.0013
Kotseruba, I., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192844835.003.0006
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
