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 501–600 of 4,609
Multiparty Grammars and Related Features for Defining Interactive Systems
Shneiderman, B. (1982) · IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tsmc.1982.4308798 · Cited by 66
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Human Sexuality: A Five-Year Literature Review 2020–2024
Döring, N., Le, T. D., Vowels, L. M., Vowels, M. J., & Marcantonio, T. L. (2024) · Current Sexual Health Reports · doi:10.1007/s11930-024-00397-y · Cited by 65
Artificial intelligence-assisted psychosis risk screening in adolescents: Practices and challenges
Cao, X., & Liu, X. (2022) · World Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.5498/wjp.v12.i10.1287 · Cited by 65
Natural Language Processing: Chances and Challenges in Dentistry
Büttner, M., Leser, U., Schneider, L., & Schwendicke, F. (2023) · Journal of Dentistry · doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104796 · Cited by 69
Enhancing Community Interactions with Data-Driven Chatbots--The DBpedia Chatbot
Athreya, R. G., Ngomo, A.-C. N., & Usbeck, R. (2018) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3184558.3186964 · Cited by 65
People power: A human-computer collaborative learning system
Dillenbourg, P., & Self, J. A. (1992) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-55606-0_75 · Cited by 65
An investigation of computer-assisted cognitive-behavior therapy in the treatment of depression
Selmi, P. M., Klein, M. H., Greist, J. H., Johnson, J. H., & Harris, W. G. (1982) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03202150 · Cited by 65
Wang, F., Cheung, A. C. K., Neitzel, A. J., & Chai, C. S. (2025) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543241255621 · Cited by 64
Robotic Telemedicine for Mental Health: A Multimodal Approach to Improve Human-Robot Engagement
Lima, M. R., Wairagkar, M., Natarajan, N., Vaitheswaran, S., & Vaidyanathan, R. (2021) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.618866 · Cited by 64
Implementing a Chatbot on a Library Website
Ehrenpreis, M., & DeLooper, J. (2022) · Journal of Web Librarianship · doi:10.1080/19322909.2022.2060893 · Cited by 64
Bao, Q., Ni, L., & Liu, J. (2020) · Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference (ACSW) · doi:10.1145/3373017.3373049 · Cited by 69
Automated conversational agents for post-intervention follow-up: a systematic review
Geoghegan, L., Scarborough, A., Wormald, J. C. R., Harrison, C. J., Collins, D. P., Gardiner, M. D., Bruce, J., & Rodrigues, J. N. (2021) · BJS Open · doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zrab070 · Cited by 64
La Inteligencia Artificial en la educación: Big data, cajas negras y solucionismo tecnológico
Gràcia, X. G., & Gil, J. M. S. (2022) · RELATEC Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa · doi:10.17398/1695-288x.21.1.129 · Cited by 64
Computer-assisted psychological intervention: A review and commentary
Bloom, B. L. (1992) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/0272-7358(92)90113-m · Cited by 64
Computer-Supervised Exposure Treatment for Phobias
Carr, A. C., Ghosh, A., & Marks, I. M. (1988) · The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/070674378803300208 · Cited by 64
Seymour, W., & Kleek, M. V. (2019) · doi:10.17605/osf.io/53q6j · Cited by 64
(2018) · doi:10.1145/3170427.3185372 · Cited by 64
Pandey, S., Sharma, S., & Wazir, S. (2022) · International Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s41870-022-00999-6 · Cited by 63
Cha, E., Dragan, A. D., & Srinivasa, S. S. (2015) · 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) · doi:10.1109/roman.2015.7333656 · Cited by 63
Howard, I. S., & Messum, P. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110334 · Cited by 63
A survey on near-human conversational agents
Singh, S., & Beniwal, H. (2021) · Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2021.10.013 · Cited by 63
Holzinger, A., Stocker, C., Ofner, B., Prohaska, G., Brabenetz, A., & Hofmann‐Wellenhof, R. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39146-0_2 · Cited by 63
The errors, insights and lessons of famous AI predictions – and what they mean for the future
Armstrong, S., Sotala, K., & hÉigeartaigh, S. Ó. (2014) · Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1080/0952813x.2014.895105 · Cited by 70
Content-Oriented User Modeling for Personalized Response Ranking in Chatbots
Liu, B., Xu, Z. X., Sun, C., Wang, B., Wang, X., Wong, D. F., & Zhang, M. (2017) · IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing · doi:10.1109/taslp.2017.2763243 · Cited by 64
Qian, Y., Ubale, R., Ramanaryanan, V., Lange, P., Suendermann-Oeft, D., Evanini, K., & Tsuprun, E. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU) · doi:10.1109/asru.2017.8268987 · Cited by 62
Bendig, E., Erb, B., Schulze-Thuesing, L., & Baumeister, H. (2019) · Verhaltenstherapie · doi:10.1159/000499492 · Cited by 62
Park, S., Thieme, A., Han, J., Lee, S., Rhee, W., & Suh, B. (2021) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3461778.3462143 · Cited by 72
Artificial Intelligence in Education
Gràcia, X. G., & Gil, J. M. S. (2021) · Seminar net · doi:10.7577/seminar.4281 · Cited by 62
PromptAid: Visual Prompt Exploration, Perturbation, Testing and Iteration for Large Language Models
Mishra, A., Danzy, B., Soni, U., Arunkumar, A., Huang, J., Kwon, B. C., & Bryan, C. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2025.3535332 · Cited by 98
Almusharraf, F., Rose, J., & Selby, P. L. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/20251 · Cited by 62
Ferrario, A., Sedlakova, J., & Trachsel, M. (2024) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/56569 · Cited by 61
Application of Artificial Intelligence in Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Studies
Thakur, A., Mishra, A. P., Panda, B., Rodríguez, D. C. S., Gaurav, I., & Majhi, B. (2020) · Current Pharmaceutical Design · doi:10.2174/1381612826666200515131245 · Cited by 63
A multimodal grammar of artificial intelligence: Measuring the gains and losses in generative AI
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2023) · Multimodality & Society · doi:10.1177/26349795231221699 · Cited by 73
A Systematic Review of Chatbots: Classification, Development, and Their Impact on Tourism
Benaddi, L., Ouaddi, C., Jakimi, A., & Ouchao, B. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3408108 · Cited by 72
Buber, educational technology, and the expansion of dialogic space
Wegerif, R., & Major, L. (2018) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-018-0828-6 · Cited by 61
Some experience in interactive system development and application
Gaines, B. R., & Facey, P. V. (1975) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/proc.1975.9854 · Cited by 61
Searle on what only brains can do
Fodor, J. A. (1980) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00005823 · Cited by 60
Using Technology for Pronunciation Teaching, Learning, and Assessment
Pennington, M. C., & Rogerson‐Revell, P. (2018) · Research and practice in applied linguistics · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-47677-7_5 · Cited by 60
CoMPosT: Characterizing and Evaluating Caricature in LLM Simulations
Cheng, M., Piccardi, T., & Yang, D. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.669 · Cited by 108
Automated Thai-FAQ Chatbot using RNN-LSTM
Muangkammuen, P., Intiruk, N., & Saikaew, K. R. (2018) · International Computer Science and Engineering Conference · doi:10.1109/icsec.2018.8712781 · Cited by 60
Natural Language Processing in Health Care and Biomedicine
Friedman, C., & Elhadad, N. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4474-8_8 · Cited by 60
Improving Access to Justice with Legal Chatbots
Queudot, M., Charton, É., & Meurs, M. (2020) · Stats · doi:10.3390/stats3030023 · Cited by 67
Internet of Things: understanding trust in techno-service systems
Harwood, T. G., & Garry, T. (2017) · Journal of service management · doi:10.1108/josm-11-2016-0299 · Cited by 59
The Dawn of the Human-Machine Era: A forecast of new and emerging language technologies
Sayers, D., Sousa‐Silva, R., Höhn, S., Ahmedi, L., Allkivi-Metsoja, K., Anastasiou, D., Beňuš, Š., Bowker, L., Bytyçi, E., Catalá, A., et al. (2021) · doi:10.17011/jyx/reports/20210518/1 · Cited by 64
Controlling Safety of Artificial Intelligence-Based Systems in Healthcare
Davahli, M. R., Karwowski, W., Fiok, K., Wan, T. T. H., & Parsaei, H. R. (2021) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym13010102 · Cited by 61
Unraveling Effects of AI Chatbots on EFL Learners’ Language Skill Development: A Meta-analysis
Xue-qing, W., & Li, R. (2024) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-024-00853-2 · Cited by 58
Large Language Models and Large Multimodal Models in Medical Imaging: A Primer for Physicians
Bradshaw, T., Tie, X., Warner, J., Hu, J., Li, Q., & Li, X. (2025) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.124.268072 · Cited by 60
Retrieval-guided Dialogue Response Generation via a Matching-to-Generation Framework
Cai, D., Wang, Y., Bi, W., Tu, Z., Liu, X., & Shi, S. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1195 · Cited by 60
Robot-Based Psychotherapy: Concepts Development, State of the Art, and New Directions
David, D. O., Matu, S. A., & David, D. (2014) · International Journal of Cognitive Therapy · doi:10.1521/ijct.2014.7.2.192 · Cited by 58
Ethical Issues Involved With the Use of Computer‐Assisted Counseling, Testing, and Guidance Systems
Sampson, J. P., & Pyle, K. R. (1983) · The Personnel and Guidance Journal · doi:10.1111/j.2164-4918.1983.tb00026.x · Cited by 58
Exploring ChatGPT’s impact on post-secondary education: A qualitative study
Rajabi, P., Taghipour, P., Cukierman, D., & Doleck, T. (2023) · Proceedings of the 25th Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3593342.3593360 · Cited by 57
Pani, B., Crawford, J., & Allen, K.-A. (2024) · Applications of Generative AI · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46238-2_13 · Cited by 57
Using Artificial Intelligence to provide Intelligent Dispute Resolution Support
Zeleznikow, J. (2021) · Group Decision and Negotiation · doi:10.1007/s10726-021-09734-1 · Cited by 57
Exploring how politeness impacts the user experience of chatbots for mental health support
Bowman, R., Cooney, O., Newbold, J. W., Thieme, A., Clark, L., Doherty, G. J., & Cowan, B. R. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103181 · Cited by 57
Facilitating Student Learning With a Chatbot in an Online Math Learning Platform
Cheng, L., Croteau, E., Baral, S., Heffernan, C., & Heffernan, N. (2024) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331241226592 · Cited by 49
Jokinen, K., & McTear, M. (2009) · Synthesis lectures on human language technologies · doi:10.2200/s00204ed1v01y200910hlt005 · Cited by 57
An iconic query language for topological relationships in GIS
Lee, Y. C., & Chin, F. L. (1995) · International Journal of Geographical Information Systems · doi:10.1080/02693799508902023 · Cited by 57
Robot Reciprocation of Hugs Increases Both Interacting Times and Self-disclosures
Shiomi, M., Nakata, A., Kanbara, M., & Hagita, N. (2020) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-020-00644-x · Cited by 56
Systematic analysis of artificial intelligence in the era of industry 4.0
Chen, W., He, W., Shen, J., Tian, X., & Wang, X. (2023) · Journal of Management Analytics · doi:10.1080/23270012.2023.2180676 · Cited by 60
Malik, M. A., Amjad, A. I., Aslam, S., & Fakhrou, A. A. (2024) · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · doi:10.3389/frma.2024.1486832 · Cited by 65
Vaira, L., Bochicchio, M. A., Conte, M., Casaluci, F. M., & Melpignano, A. (2018) · International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium (IDEAS) · doi:10.1145/3216122.3216173 · Cited by 56
Alexa Prize — State of the Art in Conversational AI
Khatri, C., Venkatesh, A., Hedayatnia, B., Ram, A., Gabriel, R., & Prasad, R. (2018) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v39i3.2810 · Cited by 62
Automatic Reminiscence Therapy for Dementia
Carós, M., Garolera, M., Radeva, P. I., & Giró-i-Nieto, X. (2020) · International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3372278.3391927 · Cited by 56
How affordances of chatbots cross the chasm between social and traditional enterprise systems
Stoeckli, E., Dremel, C., Uebernickel, F., & Brenner, W. (2020) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-019-00359-6 · Cited by 55
ChatGPT in higher education—a student's perspective
Shuhaiber, A., Kuhail, M. A., & Salman, S. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100565 · Cited by 55
The Affective Scaffolding of Grief in the Digital Age: The Case of Deathbots
Fabry, R. E., & Alfano, M. (2024) · Topoi · doi:10.1007/s11245-023-09995-2 · Cited by 59
A Domain-Specific Generative Chatbot Trained from Little Data
Kapočiūtė-Dzikienė, J. (2020) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app10072221 · Cited by 58
Nabiha: An Arabic Dialect Chatbot
Al-Ghadhban, D., & Al-Twairesh, N. (2020) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2020.0110357 · Cited by 55
Catalyzing social interaction with ubiquitous computing
Morris, M. E., Lundell, J., & Dishman, E. (2004) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/985921.986011 · Cited by 55
From timesharing to the sixth generation: the development of human-computer interaction. Part I
Gaines, B. R., & Shaw, M. L. G. (1986) · International Journal of Man-Machine Studies · doi:10.1016/s0020-7373(86)80037-2 · Cited by 55
Fleurence, R. L., Bian, J., Wang, X., Xu, H., Dawoud, D., Higashi, M., & Chhatwal, J. (2025) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2024.10.3846 · Cited by 54
Specifying and animating facial signals for discourse in embodied conversational agents
DeCarlo, D., Stone, M., Revilla, C., & Venditti, J. J. (2004) · Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds · doi:10.1002/cav.5 · Cited by 54
Hidden Surface Problems: On the Digital Image as Material Object
Gaboury, J. (2015) · Journal of Visual Culture · doi:10.1177/1470412914562270 · Cited by 54
Observing Dialogue in Therapy: Categorizing and Forecasting Behavioral Codes
Cao, J., Tanana, M., Imel, Z. E., Poitras, E., Atkins, D. C., & Srikumar, V. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1563 · Cited by 60
Güler, N. K., Dertli, Z. G., Boran, E., & Yıldız, B. (2024) · Pedagogical Research · doi:10.29333/pr/14145 · Cited by 62
Mohammadabadi, S. M. S., Kara, B. C., Eyüpoğlu, C., Uzay, C., Tosun, M. S., & Karakuş, O. (2025) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics14183580 · Cited by 71
Planning, Executing, and Evaluating the Winograd Schema Challenge
Morgenstern, L., Davis, E., & Ortiz, C. L. (2016) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v37i1.2639 · Cited by 54
(2001) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4617.003.0004 · Cited by 54
Natural communication with information systems
Marsic, I., Medl, A., & Flanagan, J. L. (2000) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/5.880088 · Cited by 54
Noble, J. M., Zamani, A., Gharaat, M., Merrick, D., Maeda, N., Lambe Foster, A., Nikolaidis, I., Goud, R., Stroulia, E., Agyapong, V. I. O., et al. (2022) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/33717 · Cited by 53
Editorial: Generative artificial intelligence as a plagiarism problem
Dien, J. (2023) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108621 · Cited by 53
Setlur, V., & Tory, M. K. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501972 · Cited by 53
Tosyalı, H., Tosyalı, F., & Coban-Tosyali, E. (2023) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2023.2288937 · Cited by 53
Confiding in and Listening to Virtual Agents
Li, J. J., Zhou, M. X., Yang, H., & Mark, G. J. (2017) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3025171.3025206 · Cited by 53
"I don't know what you're talking about, HALexa"
Murad, C., & Munteanu, C. (2019) · ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) · doi:10.1145/3342775.3342795 · Cited by 53
Distance Learning and Computer-Mediated Communication: Interactive, Quasi-Interactive or Monologue?
Henri, F. (1995) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_8 · Cited by 53
Are AI language models such as ChatGPT ready to improve the care of individuals with epilepsy?
Boßelmann, C. M., Leu, C., & Lal, D. (2023) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/epi.17570 · Cited by 52
Capability Sensitive Design for Health and Wellbeing Technologies
Jacobs, N. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00275-5 · Cited by 52
Service chatbot: Co-citation and big data analysis toward a review and research agenda
Lee, S. E., Ju, N., & Lee, K. (2023) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122722 · Cited by 52
Creative Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Urmeneta, A., & Roméro, M. (2024) · Palgrave studies in creativity and culture · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-55272-4 · Cited by 57
Global, N., & Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025) · doi:10.64357/ai-and-machine-learning-2025 · Cited by 52
Online CBT I: Bridging the Gap Between Eliza and Modern Online CBT Treatment Packages
Helgadóttir, F. D., Menzies, R. G., Onslow, M., Packman, A., & O’Brian, S. (2009) · Behaviour Change · doi:10.1375/bech.26.4.245 · Cited by 52
Towards a method for evaluating naturalness in conversational dialog systems
Hung, V. C., Elvir, M., González, A. J., & DeMara, R. F. (2009) · Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/icsmc.2009.5345904 · Cited by 52
A User Perception--Based Approach to Create Smiling Embodied Conversational Agents
Ochs, M., Pélachaud, C., & McKeown, G. J. (2017) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/2925993 · Cited by 52
Sounding Board: A User-Centric and Content-Driven Social Chatbot
Fang, H., Cheng, H., Sap, M., Clark, E., Holtzman, A., Choi, Y., Smith, N. A., & Mari Ostendorf, E. (2018) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-5020 · Cited by 52
Hey Siri, tell me a story: Digital storytelling and AI authorship
Thorne, S. (2020) · Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/1354856520913866 · Cited by 53
Potential use of deep learning techniques for postmortem imaging
Dobay, A., Ford, J. M., Decker, S., Ampanozi, G., Franckenberg, S., Affolter, R., Sieberth, T., & Ebert, L. C. (2020) · Forensic Science Medicine and Pathology · doi:10.1007/s12024-020-00307-3 · Cited by 53
Malhotra, G., Waheed, A., Srivastava, A., Akhtar, M. S., & Chakraborty, T. (2022) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/3488560.3498509 · Cited by 57
ChatGPT and L2 Written Communication: A Game-Changer or Just Another Tool?
Zadorozhnyy, A., & Lai, W. Y. W. (2023) · Languages · doi:10.3390/languages9010005 · Cited by 51
Le, D.-V.-T., Bigo, L., Herremans, D., & Mikaela Keller, A. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3714457 · Cited by 65
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
