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 401–500 of 4,609
Computer models solving intelligence test problems: Progress and implications
Hernández‐Orallo, J., Martínez‐Plumed, F., Schmid, U., Siebers, M., & Dowe, D. L. (2015) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2015.09.011 · Cited by 83
Supporting Workplace Detachment and Reattachment with Conversational Intelligence
Williams, A. C., Kaur, H., Mark, G. J., Thompson, A. L., Iqbal, S. T., & Teevan, J. B. (2018) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173662 · Cited by 91
On pigeons and people: A preliminary look at the Columban Simulation Project
Epstein, R. (1981) · The Behavior Analyst · doi:10.1007/bf03391851 · Cited by 83
Chatbot features for anxiety and depression: a scoping review
Ahmed, A., Hassan, A., Aziz, S., Abd-alrazaq, A. A., Ali, N., Alzubaidi, M., Al-Thani, D., Elhusein, B., Siddig, M. A., Ahmed, M., et al. (2023) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/14604582221146719 · Cited by 82
Does ChatGPT have semantic understanding? A problem with the statistics-of-occurrence strategy
Titus, L. M. (2024) · Cognitive Systems Research · doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2023.101174 · Cited by 82
TURINGBENCH: A Benchmark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neural Text Generation
Uchendu, A., Ma, Z., Le, T., Zhang, R., & Lee, D. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021 · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.172 · Cited by 82
Organizational Factors Affecting Successful Implementation of Chatbots for Customer Service
Zhang, J. J. Y., Følstad, A., & Bjørkli, C. A. (2021) · Journal of Internet Commerce · doi:10.1080/15332861.2021.1966723 · Cited by 82
Framework for Design and Implementation of Chat Support System using Natural Language Processing
William, P., Lanke, G. R., Inukollu, V. N. R., Singh, P., Shrivastava, A., & Kumar, R. (2023) · International Conference on Intelligent Engineering and Management (ICIEM) · doi:10.1109/iciem59379.2023.10166939 · Cited by 82
Nashwan, A. J., Gharib, S., Alhadidi, M. M. B., El‐Ashry, A. M., Alamgir, A., Al-Hassan, M., Khedr, M. A., Dawood, S. S., & Abufarsakh, B. (2023) · Issues in Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1080/01612840.2023.2263579 · Cited by 87
ChatGPT and large language models in orthopedics: from education and surgery to research
Chatterjee, S., Bhattacharya, M., Pal, S., Lee, S., & Chakraborty, C. (2023) · Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics · doi:10.1186/s40634-023-00700-1 · Cited by 85
Şova, R., Tudor, C. D., Tartavulea, C. V., & Dieaconescu, R. I. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13183632 · Cited by 95
(2024) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3674127 · Cited by 86
‘Realness’ in Chatbots: Establishing Quantifiable Criteria
Morrissey, K., & Kirakowski, J. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39330-3_10 · Cited by 86
Artificial intelligence: reflecting on the past and looking towards the next paradigm shift
Radanliev, P. (2024) · Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1080/0952813x.2024.2323042 · Cited by 103
Elshan, E., Zierau, N., Engel, C., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2022) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-021-10230-9 · Cited by 86
Privacy issues in Large Language Models: A survey
Kibriya, H., Khan, W. Z., Siddiqa, A., & Khan, M. K. (2024) · Computers & Electrical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.compeleceng.2024.109698 · Cited by 92
Chatbot Adoption: A Multiperspective Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda
Alsharhan, A. M., Al‐Emran, M., & Shaalan, K. F. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2023.3298360 · Cited by 79
Approaches for Dialog Management in Conversational Agents
Harms, J.-G., Kucherbaev, P., Bozzon, A., & Houben, G.-J. (2019) · IEEE Internet Computing · doi:10.1109/mic.2018.2881519 · Cited by 78
Incorporating loose-structured knowledge into conversation modeling via recall-gate LSTM
Xu, Z. X., Liu, B., Wang, B., Sun, C., & Wang, X. (2017) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2017.7966297 · Cited by 80
A computational approach to socially distributed cognition
Dillenbourg, P., & Self, J. A. (1992) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/bf03172899 · Cited by 78
Review of State-of-the-Art Design Techniques for Chatbots
Agarwal, R., & Wadhwa, M. (2020) · SN Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s42979-020-00255-3 · Cited by 83
Seering, J., Flores, J. P., Savage, S., & Hammer, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3274426 · Cited by 77
People cannot distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test
Jones, C. R., Rathi, I., Taylor, S., & Bergen, B. K. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3715275.3732108 · Cited by 76
“The Turing test has a storied history, having “unquestionably generated more commentary and controversy than any other article in the field of artificial intelligence” [13, p. 116].”
InfluentialChen, V., Le, H. T., & Tran, S. T. T. (2021) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-11-2019-0447 · Cited by 76
Understanding the impact of control levels over emotion-aware chatbots
Benke, I., Gnewuch, U., & Maedche, A. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.107122 · Cited by 76
Rodriguez, S., & Mune, C. D. (2022) · Reference Services Review · doi:10.1108/rsr-05-2022-0020 · Cited by 86
Lee, M. K., Kim, J., Forlizzi, J., & Kiesler, S. B. (2015) · ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp) · doi:10.1145/2750858.2807552 · Cited by 85
Syntactic Semantics: Foundations of Computational Natural-Language Understanding
Rapaport, W. J. (1988) · Studies in cognitive systems · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2699-8_4 · Cited by 76
Programs, causal powers, and intentionality
Haugeland, J. (1980) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00005835 · Cited by 75
Enabling intent to configure scientific networks for high performance demands
Kiran, M., Pouyoul, E., Mercian, A., Tierney, B., Guok, C. P., & Monga, I. (2017) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2017.04.020 · Cited by 75
Perceptions on Authenticity in Chat Bots
Neururer, M., Schlögl, S., Brinkschulte, L., & Groth, A. (2018) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti2030060 · Cited by 84
Human versus Computer Partner in the Paired Oral Discussion Test
Ockey, G. J., & Chukharev‐Hudilainen, E. (2020) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amaa067 · Cited by 80
Locatelli, M., Seghezzi, E., Pellegrini, L., Tagliabue, L. C., & Giuda, G. M. D. (2021) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings11120583 · Cited by 75
Software-Based Dialogue Systems: Survey, Taxonomy, and Challenges
Motger, Q., Franch, X., & Marco, J. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3527450 · Cited by 87
An In-Depth Review of ChatGPT’s Pros and Cons for Learning and Teaching in Education
Samala, A. D., Zhaı, X., Aoki, K., Bojić, L., & Žikić, S. (2024) · International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) · doi:10.3991/ijim.v18i02.46509 · Cited by 89
Ma, Z., Mei, Y., Long, Y., Su, Z., & Gajos, K. Z. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642482 · Cited by 91
Veletsianos, G., & Miller, C. (2008) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00797.x · Cited by 75
Grolleman, J., van Dijk, B., Nijholt, A., & van Emst, A. J. (2006) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11755494_19 · Cited by 75
Thomas C. Schelling and James M. Sakoda: The Intellectual, Technical, and Social History of a Model
Hegselmann, R. (2017) · Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation · doi:10.18564/jasss.3511 · Cited by 75
Convey: Exploring the Use of a Context View for Chatbots
Jain, M., Kota, R., Kumar, P., & Patel, S. N. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3174042 · Cited by 74
Thapa, S., Shiwakoti, S., Shah, S. B., Adhikari, S., Veeramani, H., Nasim, M., & Naseem, U. (2025) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-025-01428-9 · Cited by 74
Litman, D. J., Strik, H., & Lim, G. S. (2018) · Language Assessment Quarterly · doi:10.1080/15434303.2018.1472265 · Cited by 74
Calvaresi, D., Ibrahim, A. H., Calbimonte, J.-P., Fragnière, E., Schegg, R., & Schumacher, M. (2021) · Journal of Tourism Futures · doi:10.1108/jtf-01-2021-0009 · Cited by 74
Alimamy, S., & Kuhail, M. A. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107711 · Cited by 77
Li, Y., Liang, S., Zhu, B., Liu, X., Li, J., Chen, D., Qin, J., & Bressington, D. T. (2023) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104494 · Cited by 80
Patient Consent and The Right to Notice and Explanation of AI Systems Used in Health Care
Hurley, M. E., Lang, B. H., Kostick, K. M., Smith, J. N., & Blumenthal‐Barby, J. (2024) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2024.2399828 · Cited by 74
Commitment of Newcomers and Old-timers to Online Health Support Communities
Yang, D., Kraut, R. E., & Levine, J. M. (2017) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3026008 · Cited by 74
When ELIZA meets therapists: a Turing test for the heart and mind
Hatch, S. G., Goodman, Z. T., Vowels, L., Hatch, H. D., Brown, A. L., Guttman, S., Le, Y., Bailey, B., Bailey, R. J., Esplin, C. R., et al. (2025) · PLOS Mental Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pmen.0000145 · Cited by 73
The Use of Chatbots in Oncological Care: A Narrative Review
Wang, A., Qian, Z., Briggs, L., Cole, A. P., Reis, L. O., & Trinh, Q.-D. (2023) · International Journal of General Medicine · doi:10.2147/ijgm.s408208 · Cited by 73
A Review of Question Answering Systems
Ojokoh, B. A., & Adebisi, E. (2019) · Journal of Web Engineering · doi:10.13052/jwe1540-9589.1785 · Cited by 73
Wong, W. K. O. (2024) · Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity · doi:10.1016/j.joitmc.2024.100278 · Cited by 73
Implementation of an inquisitive chatbot for database supported knowledge bases
Reshmi, S. N., & Balakrishnan, K. (2016) · Sadhana · doi:10.1007/s12046-016-0544-1 · Cited by 73
Searle, J. R. (1988) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-1446-7.50007-8 · Cited by 73
Rich, . (1984) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.1984.1659244 · Cited by 73
Cui, F., Cui, Q., & Song, Y. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2020.2985588 · Cited by 74
Modeling Naturalistic Affective States Via Facial, Vocal, and Bodily Expressions Recognition
Karpouzis, K. C., Caridakis, G., Kessous, L., Amir, N., Raouzaiou, A. T., Malatesta, L., & Kollias, S. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72348-6_5 · Cited by 72
Kamphorst, B. A. (2017) · Personal and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1007/s00779-017-1020-6 · Cited by 72
Hayes‐Roth, B., & Doyle, P. (1998) · Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems · doi:10.1023/a:1010019818773 · Cited by 72
A Sequential Matching Framework for Multi-Turn Response Selection in Retrieval-Based Chatbots
Wu, Y., Wu, W., Chen, X., Xu, C., Li, Z., & Zhou, M. (2018) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00345 · Cited by 72
Empathic pedagogical conversational agents: A systematic literature review
Ortega‐Ochoa, E., Arguedas, M., & Daradoumis, T. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13413 · Cited by 61
Large Language Models Produce Responses Perceived to be Empathic
Lee, Y. K., Suh, J., Zhan, H., Li, J. J., & Ong, D. C. (2024) · International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and workshops · doi:10.1109/acii63134.2024.00012 · Cited by 104
AutoVis: Automatic Visualization
Wills, G. J., & Wilkinson, L. (2008) · Information Visualization · doi:10.1057/ivs.2008.27 · Cited by 71
A Review of Technologies for Conversational Systems
Masche, J., & Le, N.-T. (2017) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61911-8_19 · Cited by 71
Response selection with topic clues for retrieval-based chatbots
Wu, Y., Li, Z., Wu, W., & Zhou, M. X. (2018) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2018.07.073 · Cited by 71
A Reason for Doubting the Existence of Consciousness
Rey, G. (1983) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-9317-1_1 · Cited by 71
An evaluation of published recommendations on the design of man-computer dialogues
Maguire, M. C. (1982) · International Journal of Man-Machine Studies · doi:10.1016/s0020-7373(82)80061-8 · Cited by 71
Chatbot-based Emotion Management for Distributed Teams
Benke, I., Knierim, M. T., & Maedche, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3415189 · Cited by 79
Wang, J., Hwang, G., & Chang, C. (2021) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100023 · Cited by 70
Jabir, A. I., Lin, X., Martinengo, L., Sharp, G., Theng, Y. L., & Car, L. T. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/48168 · Cited by 75
A Chatbot System for Mental Healthcare Based on SAT Counseling Method
Kamita, T., Ito, T., Matsumoto, A., Munakata, T., & Inoue, T. (2019) · Mobile Information Systems · doi:10.1155/2019/9517321 · Cited by 69
Chatbots and student motivation: a scoping review
Huang, W., Jiang, J., King, R. B., & Fryer, L. K. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00524-2 · Cited by 86
Multimodal Agent AI: A Survey of Recent Advances and Future Directions
Sun, Y., Sun, H., Ma, J., Zhang, P., & Huang, X. (2025) · Journal of Computer Science and Technology · doi:10.1007/s11390-025-4802-8 · Cited by 73
Natural Language Processing: A Human-Computer Interaction Perspective
Manaris, B. (1998) · Advances in computers · doi:10.1016/s0065-2458(08)60665-8 · Cited by 75
Murgia, A., Janssens, D., Demeyer, S., & Vasilescu, B. (2016) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/2851581.2892311 · Cited by 69
Simulation Research in the Analysis of Behavior
Epstein, R. (1986) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-8786-2_7 · Cited by 70
The real risks of artificial intelligence
Parnas, D. L. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3132724 · Cited by 68
A framework for understanding chatbots and their future
Paikari, E., & van der Hoek, A. (2018) · International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE) · doi:10.1145/3195836.3195859 · Cited by 68
Artificial intelligence and counseling: Four levels of implementation
Fulmer, R. (2019) · Theory & Psychology · doi:10.1177/0959354319853045 · Cited by 78
HealthAssistantBot: A Personal Health Assistant for the Italian Language
Polignano, M., Narducci, F., Iovine, A., Musto, C., de Gemmis, M., & Semeraro, G. M. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3000815 · Cited by 68
Artificial Emotions and Love and Sex Doll Service Workers
Belk, R. (2022) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/10946705211063692 · Cited by 63
Kuhail, M. A., Mathew, S. S., Khalil, A., Berengueres, J., & Shah, S. J. H. (2024) · Science of Computer Programming · doi:10.1016/j.scico.2024.103111 · Cited by 68
Predicting susceptibility to social bots on Twitter
Wald, R., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Napolitano, A., & Sumner, C. (2013) · IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI) · doi:10.1109/iri.2013.6642447 · Cited by 69
Prosodic alignment in human–computer interaction
Suzuki, N., & Katagiri, Y. (2007) · Connection Science · doi:10.1080/09540090701369125 · Cited by 68
Automating versus augmenting intelligence
Rouse, W. B., & Spohrer, J. (2018) · Journal of Enterprise Transformation · doi:10.1080/19488289.2018.1424059 · Cited by 68
Rule-based chabot for student enquiries
Singh, J., Joesph, M. H., & Jabbar, K. B. A. (2019) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1228/1/012060 · Cited by 67
Rahman, R., Rahman, M. R., Tripto, N. I., Ali, M. E., Apon, S. H., & Shahriyar, R. (2021) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445694 · Cited by 77
Daneshvar, N., Pandita, D., Erickson, S. M., Sulmasy, L. S., & DeCamp, M. W. (2024) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m24-0146 · Cited by 69
Building a Social Conversational Pedagogical Agent
Gulz, A., Haake, M., Silvervarg, A., Sjödén, B., & Veletsianos, G. (2011) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-617-6.ch006 · Cited by 67
Conversing with Personal Digital Assistants: on Gender and Artificial Intelligence
Costa, P. (2018) · Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts · doi:10.7559/citarj.v10i3.563 · Cited by 67
Bates, J., Loyall, B., & Reilly, W. S. N. (1991) · ACM SIGART Bulletin · doi:10.1145/122344.122350 · Cited by 67
NATURAL LANGUAGE UNDERSTANDING
Barr, A. B. (1980) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v1i1.85 · Cited by 67
Celino, I., & Calegari, G. R. (2020) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102410 · Cited by 72
Computer-Controlled Virtual Humans in Patient-Facing Systems: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Chattopadhyay, D., Ma, T., Sharifi, H., & Martyn-Nemeth, P. A. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/18839 · Cited by 66
Khan, F. H., Pasha, M. A., & Masud, S. (2021) · Micromachines · doi:10.3390/mi12060665 · Cited by 74
Miura, C., Chen, S., Saiki, S., Nakamura, M., & Yasuda, K. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22103829 · Cited by 73
Hadweh, P., Niset, A., Salvagno, M., Barajraji, M. A., Hadwe, S. E., Taccone, F. S., & Barrit, S. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm14124026 · Cited by 72
Automatic question generation from text - an aid to independent study
Wolfe, J. H. (1976) · ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) · doi:10.1145/800107.803459 · Cited by 66
Tallyn, E., Fried, H., Gianni, R., Isard, A., & Speed, C. (2018) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3174178 · Cited by 66
Myers, T. C., Swan-Kremeier, L. A., Wonderlich, S. A., Lancaster, K., & Mitchell, J. E. (2004) · International Journal of Eating Disorders · doi:10.1002/eat.20032 · Cited by 66
Dascal, M. (1977) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/0378-2166(77)90026-1 · Cited by 66
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
