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 4,201–4,300 of 4,609
Ariel, N., & Riesenfeld, D. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197809563.003.0005
Clichés Between Convention and Event
Ariel, N., & Riesenfeld, D. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197809563.003.0004
Ariel, N., & Riesenfeld, D. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197809563.003.0003
Clichés and Artificial Intelligence
Ariel, N., & Riesenfeld, D. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197809563.003.0006
Ariel, N., & Riesenfeld, D. (2026) · doi:10.1093/9780197809563.001.0001
Integration of AI tools in education: A TPACK analysis and pedagogical implications
Matović, S., & Babić, J. (2025) · doi:10.5937/int-themed-bg25083m
El uso de la IA y la formación universitaria en humanidades
Hernández, N. A. N. (2026) · FIGURAS REVISTA ACADÉMICA DE INVESTIGACIÓN · doi:10.22201/fesa.26832917e.2026.7.2.474
Aktaş, N. B., & Akbıyık, A. (2026) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-026-01311-0
Conversations From Make-Believe: An Attentive Encoder–Decoder Chatbot Trained on Scripted Dialogue
Rajput, S. S. (2025) · International Conference on Algorithms, Computing and Artificial Intelligence (ACAI) · doi:10.1109/acai68217.2025.11406303
(2026) · Frontiers research topics · doi:10.3389/978-2-8325-7572-7
28320 Socially interactive agents as interface to health technology
Gebhard, P., & Schneeberger, T. (2026) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783111586458-020
Ethical Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Engineering
Manzeschke, P. D. T. H. A., & Wittenberg, T. C. (2026) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783111586458
253 Generative artificial intelligence: From scientific foundations to societal applications
Mainzer, K. (2026) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783111586458-003
Scatolin, M. F., & Pedrini, H. (2026) · Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society · doi:10.5753/jbcs.2026.6044
Pitteri, A. (2026) · International Forum of Psychoanalysis · doi:10.1080/0803706x.2025.2577151
Language without body, meaning without world: The uncanny in the language of artificial intelligence
Godoi, B. S., Campos, J. P., Raimundo, L., Mendonça, M., Silveira, G., Gregori, M., & Iannini, G. D. P. M. (2026) · International Forum of Psychoanalysis · doi:10.1080/0803706x.2026.2619432
Enhancing LLM Dialogue with Graph-Based Context, Style, and Sentiment Integration
Gotmare, M. P., & Vatsavai, R. R. (2025) · IEEE ... International Conference on Data Mining workshops · doi:10.1109/icdmw69685.2025.00299
INTELIGÊNCIA ARTIFICIAL APLICADA À GESTÃO DO CONHECIMENTO: CONSTRUÇÃO DE CHATBOTS COM LLMS E RAG
Schmidt, D., de Souza, R. P., Sellitto, M. A., & Gauss, L. (2025) · Revista SODEBRAS · doi:10.29367/58des092
Juranek, J. F. (2026) · Psychology Learning & Teaching · doi:10.1177/14757257261426784
Yanuario, V. R. C. (2026) · Revista Científica UNET · doi:10.65574/rcunet.v37n2.04
A High-Speed, Multimodal Architecture for Real-Time Contextual Voice Assistance
Saye, S. P., Poovazhagan, A., Subburaj, G., & Vinotheni, M. S. (2026) · International Conference on Advances in Electrical, Computing, Communication and Sustainable Technologies (ICAECT) · doi:10.1109/icaect68478.2026.11425934
Wu, W., Egger, S., Bucher, A. M., Vashkite, I., Dolata, M., & Schwabe, G. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-19687-3_31
Ethics in Computer Science Research
Dechesne, F., & Gadyatskaya, O. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-20684-8_4
Exploring Beginner Chinese Learners’ Attitudes Towards AI-Driven Conversations: A Case Study
Wang, H., Zeng, H., Yu, J., & Du, K. (2025) · International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology (ICEMT) · doi:10.1145/3761843.3761885
Turizm Sektöründe Antropomorfik Hizmet Robotları: Bir Değerlendirme ve Öneriler
Utkan, Z., & Baytok, A. (2026) · Anatolia Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi · doi:10.17123/atad.1911783
A Method for Enhancing TCM Consultation System Based on RLAIF and MoE
Chen, Y., Kong, S., Xiao, Q., Ma, K., Wang, M., & Chen, J. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Computer Science and Information Processing (AICSIP) · doi:10.1109/aicsip65423.2025.11427294
Teaching and Assessing with AI: Teaching Ideas, Research, and Reflections
(2026) · Frontiers research topics · doi:10.3389/978-2-8325-7645-8
The Risk of Manipulation and Deception in sXAI
Alpsancar, S., & Klenk, M. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-5290-7_30
Turn-Taking in Conversation Analysis
Ghilzai, S. A. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-95504-1.01660-4
Learning Analytics, Artificial Intelligence und Data Mining in der Hochschulbildung
Queckenberg, R., Leschke, J., & Persike, M. (2025) · transcript Verlag eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783839475836
Early Detection of Lone-Wolf Radicalization: The Role of Conversational Artificial Intelligence
Beşgül, B. (2026) · AJIT-e Academic Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.5824/ajite.2026.01.001.x
An Analysis of the Human Ability to Detect Deepfakes With Geopolitical Content
Brienza, M., Golotta, M., Romano, M., Nardi, D., & Bloisi, D. D. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2026.3667623
Bosco, M., Kán, P., Wieser, A., Shariattalab, N., Kovačić, I., & Kaufmann, H. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and eXtended and Virtual Reality (AIxVR) · doi:10.1109/aixvr67263.2026.00025
Attributes conducive to anthropomorphism in artificial intelligence
Syed, R., & Mistareehi, H. (2026) · TELKOMNIKA (Telecommunication Computing Electronics and Control) · doi:10.12928/telkomnika.v24i2.27483
Pro und Kontra zur Nutzung von Chatbots und Avataren in der Trauer
Möllers, J. S., & Krause, I. (2026) · Leidfaden · doi:10.13109/leid.2026.15.1.9
Etude et modélisation d'un dialogue homme-machine récréatif ou ludique
Tabutiaux, B. (2014) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/91da195ez67e0z4942z833az1988c5d0440c
Psychological Anxiety Risk Analysis Model Based on Large Language Model Interaction
Hou, Z., Yan, L., Luo, L., Ding, Z., & Zhou, Y. (2026) · Human-Centric Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1007/s44230-026-00149-2
Duplessis, G. D. (2014) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/4219c384z2850z4eb4z8909z05341663be22
Ethical Considerations of Large Language Models: Challenges and Best Practices
(2026) · Frontiers research topics · doi:10.3389/978-2-8325-7702-8
Schiaffonati, V. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-70581-6_97-1
Alvarez, S. E. V., Marín, M. E. A., Alcántar, J. I. A., Marcial, M. C., & Franco, E. G. C. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-17930-2_22
Digital Empowerment und Ethik – Handlungsfelder und Wirkungsquellen der Kliniken
Appel, J. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-72469-9_15
A personal assistant for the enactment of business processes
Fuckner, M. (2016) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/343eb68cz74baz4d6fza16az0f4fa0f65ebf
Rhétorique et informatique : à la source des humanités numériques
Dehut, J. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/91d2e643z1d6az4572z82f6z7a6e0d0457fd
Response selection for end-to-end retrieval-based dialogue systems
Boussaha, B. E. A. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/81045dfazc0f4z4eb2zaa8ezc9afd8f02bba
Sur le rôle de l’être humain dans le dialogue humain/machine
Barlier, M. (2018) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/6593c9f6za16ez4d62z9b6fzc1bca5e50df4
Input noise injection for supervised machine learning, with applications on genomic and image data
Khalfaoui, B. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/2026ab7fzf56cz4bd4z85daz4cbfb2fbc88a
Analyse du discours conversationnel dans le cadre de communications médiées par ordinateur
Auguste, J. (2020) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/60f1f619z22c5z4f5cza402z4ff7f222bb61
Contextualization and Generalization in Entity and Relation Extraction
Taillé, B. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/72fea173z5549z4bd5z8332zf81f26d3c2b9
Multimodal and interactive models for visually grounded language learning
Strub, F. (2020) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/565f6b44z5446z433azb85dz57d7ca36bccf
Neural Transfer Learning for Domain Adaptation in Natural Language Processing
Meftah, S. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/9111562bzfa37z4fd8zae6bz2e8ae8d5d403
Scalzitti, N. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/b0086ce5zb815z4b06z81e2z51de2097fcfd
Saisie de prescriptions médicales en langage naturel sur terminaux mobiles
Kocabiyikoglu, A. C. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/998d4b74z9eb1z49bcz9763zfa1e8ebcbd43
Yankol‐Schalck, M. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/539531e4za6a6z4a53za634z00fcd670513f
Human-Machine Dialogue in the Medical Field. Using Dialog to Collect Important Patient Information
Liednikova, A. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/b572f8cbz5876z4683z828bzfb09085ddd78
Chaffin, A. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/5e4cd6f0z8697z4a0cz921dzd8592affa0a9
Becha, R., Sellami, A., Bouassida, N., & Idri, A. (2026) · Journal of Software: Evolution and Process · doi:10.1002/smr.70110
Développer des machines parlantes : les chatbots à l’épreuve du marché
Esteban, C. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/5d8e685cz5a3bz4f85z87e6z5a514d3e4a1f
Natural Language Processing Approaches for Closed-Domain Technical Dialogues
Boukhatem, N. M. (2024) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/15a0eb24z21caz4cfaz836cz86f80dfe8ac2
Bertrand, R. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/b3cc0701z9f08z4411z87baz7c546d9bc0a0
Projecting Computer Languages for a Protean Interaction
Gobert, C. (2024) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/a8b3c410zb7d6z40a1z8398z6d386e64da0a
Analyse avancée de signaux ECG acquis en IRM
Aublin, P. G. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/3ac35dccz80f7z4580z9c4cz49d3a94f13cc
The Emotional Infrastructure of Omnichannel Communication: Rethinking Bot-Human Interaction
Palomino-Flores, P., Palomino-Flores, O., Benavides, K. B., & Carvache-Franco, O. (2026) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-16288-5_27
Enjeux éthiques de l'apprentissage automatique et du Big Data : une perspective herméneutique
Demichelis, R. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/c644fb5azca2bz4644zbed6z0e4f6b41dfe0
Traitement dans le domaine chiffré par l'intelligence artificielle
Saj, R. E. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/fc22f63dze074z433dz9f5ezcd79b43ba3d8
Accessible Six-DOF Clay-Printing Platform Using a 3D-Printed Robotic Arm
Čabaravdić, M., & Sarajlić, A. (2026) · AI Computer Science and Robotics Technology · doi:10.5772/acrt.20250181
Towards efficient Knowledge Graph-based Retrieval Augmented Generation for conversational agents
Schaeffer, M. (2025) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/d674545fzad62z4631z9327zab503346771d
Furbach, U., & Seising, R. (2026) · doi:10.1515/9783111386690-029
Privacy-Preserving Self-Learning Chatbot with Federated Intelligence
Kulshrestha, P., Aslam, A., & Ansari, M. S. (2026) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-0429-9_39
Exploring Natural Language Prompts for Privacy Settings in VR
Fuhry, D., Wagner, J., & George, C. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798950
Engagingness in Open-Domain Dialogue Systems: A Systematic Survey of Datasets, Metrics and Methods
Mitra, E., Ferron, A., & Agrawal, A. (2026) · AI Computer Science and Robotics Technology · doi:10.5772/acrt20250081
Artificial Intelligence Based Virtual Assistant System
Revathy, J. S., Rani, J. M., Sachdeva, M. R., & Devi, T. G. M. (2026) · International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems for Collaborative Intelligence (ICMSCI) · doi:10.1109/icmsci67830.2026.11469242
Generative AI in Life Sciences: Concepts and Applications from Molecules to Medicine
Wang, Z., Sannyasi, A., & Jiang, J. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-14222-1_4
Artificial Intelligence as a Catalyst for Curiosity in Teaching, Learning, and Education
Garner, B., & Snyder, T. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/407439
The Potential Use of Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatric Care
Nuñez, J.-J. (2026) · Psychiatric Annals · doi:10.3928/00485713-20260324-02
Abderrahmen, S., & Djamel, R. (2026) · Science Education and Innovations in the Context of Modern Problems · doi:10.56334/sei/9.5.22
The Quest for Conscious, Aligned, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)
Edwards, D. J. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-15628-0_1
Costa, D. D. A. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6547921
Esfandiari, N., Kiani, K., & Rastgoo, R. (2026) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-026-02743-z
Herane, L. A. G. (2026) · International Forum of Psychoanalysis · doi:10.1080/0803706x.2026.2617183
Fong, S., Carollo, A., Maso, M. D., Martinotti, G., Luciani, D., Khan, Y. S., Pellegrini, L., Corazza, O., & Esposito, G. (2026) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/4674484
Rao, S. P. R., Li, L., Haddad, H., & He, S. (2026) · Journal of Information Systems Applied Research and Analytics · doi:10.62273/xqbk2345
MongoTalk: An Agentic AI Framework for Conversational and Autonomous No-Code MongoDB Management
Patle, A., Ajalkar, D. A., Siddheshwar, S., Vijay, V., & Shirsath, D. (2025) · Joint International Conference on Data Science & Management of Data (CODS-COMAD) · doi:10.1145/3799830.3799881
Roobaert, L., & Claeys, D. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-19495-4_7
FCCC framework for conversational AI systems
Hundertmark, S. (2026) · doi:10.51363/unifr.eth.2026.034
Sawant, P., Chavan, N., & Bharti, M. (2026) · 2026 International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Future Innovations (ETFI) · doi:10.1109/etfi68128.2026.11484735 · Cited by 1
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
