This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kellychen927. Peer reviewers: Alexakapoor, Oliviaolcott.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
"... there is nothing magic about the symbol "+" that makes it well-suited to indicate addition..."
Actually there is something, even if not magic; The cross is one of the most ancient symbols used by mankind, probably in use long before writing. It is associated with the idea of two things meeting, most notably earth (horizontal plane, -) and sky (veritcal, |) or the meeting of weapons in combat (x), so the meeting of numerical values is pretty close. A modified version of the symbol, the T cross (only associated with the letter t in the cultures that use it, before modern communications and the spread of english that is) implies one componenet supporting another, thus when the horizontal component is placed on the vertical the result is a structure that has a different identity than either of its parts. An example would be wooden beams in buildings, bridges or other constructs.
I should mention that i have no knowledge of the actual history of the cross as a mathematical symbol, so the above text is more an opinion than a report of facts. This opinion however does come from the study of other subjects (not related to mathematics) like history and anthropology.
I don't quite get how this is related to ELIZA, the chatbot. Is it because ELIZA just throws terms back at you without itself understanding what they mean? -- AaronW 18:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is due to the fact that humans talking to ELIZA interpret what it says as intelligent. -- Parmentier 08:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd vote for rewriting or deleting this article. It is not clear from it that this is computer-slang. Rather, it seems to imply that this vaugely-defined 'effect' originated with ELIZA, which is completely untrue. The whole field of Semiotics is devoted to studying these relations, and it is quite old. This is just a (very rare) computer slang term which seems to encompass the whole field. This would be the wrong place to try to give a full description of semiotics and semiotic relationships.
Yes, this article needs a rewrite. I don't wote for deletion, since the word is a part of the computers history.
It is hard to find any online information about the Eliza Effect, since the same definition found here has been copypasted all over the web. However, the book "Hamlet on the Holodeck" defines the Eliza Effect as "attributing greater intelligence or intentionally to a machine than it possesses".
I think this is much more exact than all the talk about symbols. -- Kasper Hviid 10:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Alba recently rewrote the page from scratch and the result is clearly an improvement. However, I'm concerned about a few things:
Thanks again, Alba, for the hard work on this article. I hope we can fix these remaining issues. Phiwum 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it be incorrect to say that empathising with a fictional character (outside of interactive fiction) is an instance on the ELIZA effect? You know the character is not real, but you begin to ascribe human motivations to it. So, is the ELIZA effect any different than "the suspension of disbelief"? Somegeek 17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph on operator overloading.
These comments have nothing at all to do with the ELIZA effect. The ELIZA effect is said to be about misinterpreting computer behavior as intensional. Overloading operators is not about computer behavior, but the meaning of certain symbols in a language. (For that matter, the notion that programmers can use an overloaded operator without knowing it is overloaded is strange indeed! Why would I write "xxx" + "YYY" unless I know that "+" is overloaded to deal with string concatenation?)
If there is some reliable reference discussing the ELIZA effect and overloading, please feel free to cite it and replace this text. Phiwum 12:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The article says the following:
Whether the effect is really caused by such thinking is an empirical question. It is just as plausible that the effect is caused by the valid but unsound deduction:
I do not see any evidence that the effect is caused by the former syllogism rather than the latter, which is valid but has a false major premise.
Indeed, we may as well say that all non-solipsists are victims of a fallacy, too, since they apply some reasoning similar to the invalid argument above. It is not enough to notice that one obvious argument for a conclusion is fallacious. We need some evidence that people actually use that fallacious deduction. Phiwum 13:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The logical fallacy section has been in the article uncited since October (when I first mentioned that it looks like OR). I think that's long enough. I have deleted the section, which appears below.
==Logical fallacy==
The ELIZA effect is a special case of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent citation needed:
If something is motivated by X, it behaves in manner Y. This program behaves in manner Y. Therefore, this program is motivated by X.
Even if the program is motivated by X, it does not follow that the observed behavior Y resulted from motivation X. Furthermore, it cannot even be demonstrated that the program is ever motivated by X. Indeed, in many cases, motivation by X is impossible (example: "The program thinks I am attractive".)
The ELIZA effect is a lesser formal fallacy than anthropomorphization, as the computer user knows that the computer is not a human or a complete artificial intelligence. The user nonetheless implicitly assumes the behavior has the same causes as the same behavior would have in a human. The assumption is a fallacy because the computer cannot experience human motives. While the programmer may have had the motivations the user assumes, this cannot be deduced solely from the program's response: the program's behavior may be an unintended side effect.
The ELIZA effect ends if the user consciously recognizes that the computer cannot be motivated in the assumed manner citation needed.
Please forgive my crappy formatting. I would appreciate it if someone with more Wiki skills fixed up the above. Phiwum 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the following two claims are contradictory. Either the apparent contradiction should be explained away or one of the two should be removed.
Neither claim is sourced. Phiwum 13:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
i have spent some hours speaking with various ELIZAs now, and she is the most awful chatterbot i know of. it's strange that this effect is named after her. --Harlequence 01:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Near the end of this article, there is a discussion of gender effects related to the ELIZA effect. That section as currently written gives the incorrect impression that Weizenbaum observed something gendered in the way that people respond emotionally to chatbots. However, the references in that section do not actually attribute this idea (or any ideas about gender) to Weizenbaum. The section should therefore be edited to make this more clear.
I'm not convinced that gender needs to be discussed at all in this article. Obviously many things about conversations and emotions entail gender, but I don't know if any of those gender entailments are specific to the conversations that people have with chatbots. Sheldon Rampton ( talk) 18:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Reference 4 to Computer Power and Human Reason by Weizenbaum is broken and doesn't go to anything. 2601:5C7:8302:A5F0:64BA:E1DE:C2E8:1EF ( talk) 18:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kellychen927. Peer reviewers: Alexakapoor, Oliviaolcott.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
"... there is nothing magic about the symbol "+" that makes it well-suited to indicate addition..."
Actually there is something, even if not magic; The cross is one of the most ancient symbols used by mankind, probably in use long before writing. It is associated with the idea of two things meeting, most notably earth (horizontal plane, -) and sky (veritcal, |) or the meeting of weapons in combat (x), so the meeting of numerical values is pretty close. A modified version of the symbol, the T cross (only associated with the letter t in the cultures that use it, before modern communications and the spread of english that is) implies one componenet supporting another, thus when the horizontal component is placed on the vertical the result is a structure that has a different identity than either of its parts. An example would be wooden beams in buildings, bridges or other constructs.
I should mention that i have no knowledge of the actual history of the cross as a mathematical symbol, so the above text is more an opinion than a report of facts. This opinion however does come from the study of other subjects (not related to mathematics) like history and anthropology.
I don't quite get how this is related to ELIZA, the chatbot. Is it because ELIZA just throws terms back at you without itself understanding what they mean? -- AaronW 18:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is due to the fact that humans talking to ELIZA interpret what it says as intelligent. -- Parmentier 08:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd vote for rewriting or deleting this article. It is not clear from it that this is computer-slang. Rather, it seems to imply that this vaugely-defined 'effect' originated with ELIZA, which is completely untrue. The whole field of Semiotics is devoted to studying these relations, and it is quite old. This is just a (very rare) computer slang term which seems to encompass the whole field. This would be the wrong place to try to give a full description of semiotics and semiotic relationships.
Yes, this article needs a rewrite. I don't wote for deletion, since the word is a part of the computers history.
It is hard to find any online information about the Eliza Effect, since the same definition found here has been copypasted all over the web. However, the book "Hamlet on the Holodeck" defines the Eliza Effect as "attributing greater intelligence or intentionally to a machine than it possesses".
I think this is much more exact than all the talk about symbols. -- Kasper Hviid 10:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Alba recently rewrote the page from scratch and the result is clearly an improvement. However, I'm concerned about a few things:
Thanks again, Alba, for the hard work on this article. I hope we can fix these remaining issues. Phiwum 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it be incorrect to say that empathising with a fictional character (outside of interactive fiction) is an instance on the ELIZA effect? You know the character is not real, but you begin to ascribe human motivations to it. So, is the ELIZA effect any different than "the suspension of disbelief"? Somegeek 17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph on operator overloading.
These comments have nothing at all to do with the ELIZA effect. The ELIZA effect is said to be about misinterpreting computer behavior as intensional. Overloading operators is not about computer behavior, but the meaning of certain symbols in a language. (For that matter, the notion that programmers can use an overloaded operator without knowing it is overloaded is strange indeed! Why would I write "xxx" + "YYY" unless I know that "+" is overloaded to deal with string concatenation?)
If there is some reliable reference discussing the ELIZA effect and overloading, please feel free to cite it and replace this text. Phiwum 12:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The article says the following:
Whether the effect is really caused by such thinking is an empirical question. It is just as plausible that the effect is caused by the valid but unsound deduction:
I do not see any evidence that the effect is caused by the former syllogism rather than the latter, which is valid but has a false major premise.
Indeed, we may as well say that all non-solipsists are victims of a fallacy, too, since they apply some reasoning similar to the invalid argument above. It is not enough to notice that one obvious argument for a conclusion is fallacious. We need some evidence that people actually use that fallacious deduction. Phiwum 13:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The logical fallacy section has been in the article uncited since October (when I first mentioned that it looks like OR). I think that's long enough. I have deleted the section, which appears below.
==Logical fallacy==
The ELIZA effect is a special case of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent citation needed:
If something is motivated by X, it behaves in manner Y. This program behaves in manner Y. Therefore, this program is motivated by X.
Even if the program is motivated by X, it does not follow that the observed behavior Y resulted from motivation X. Furthermore, it cannot even be demonstrated that the program is ever motivated by X. Indeed, in many cases, motivation by X is impossible (example: "The program thinks I am attractive".)
The ELIZA effect is a lesser formal fallacy than anthropomorphization, as the computer user knows that the computer is not a human or a complete artificial intelligence. The user nonetheless implicitly assumes the behavior has the same causes as the same behavior would have in a human. The assumption is a fallacy because the computer cannot experience human motives. While the programmer may have had the motivations the user assumes, this cannot be deduced solely from the program's response: the program's behavior may be an unintended side effect.
The ELIZA effect ends if the user consciously recognizes that the computer cannot be motivated in the assumed manner citation needed.
Please forgive my crappy formatting. I would appreciate it if someone with more Wiki skills fixed up the above. Phiwum 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the following two claims are contradictory. Either the apparent contradiction should be explained away or one of the two should be removed.
Neither claim is sourced. Phiwum 13:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
i have spent some hours speaking with various ELIZAs now, and she is the most awful chatterbot i know of. it's strange that this effect is named after her. --Harlequence 01:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Near the end of this article, there is a discussion of gender effects related to the ELIZA effect. That section as currently written gives the incorrect impression that Weizenbaum observed something gendered in the way that people respond emotionally to chatbots. However, the references in that section do not actually attribute this idea (or any ideas about gender) to Weizenbaum. The section should therefore be edited to make this more clear.
I'm not convinced that gender needs to be discussed at all in this article. Obviously many things about conversations and emotions entail gender, but I don't know if any of those gender entailments are specific to the conversations that people have with chatbots. Sheldon Rampton ( talk) 18:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Reference 4 to Computer Power and Human Reason by Weizenbaum is broken and doesn't go to anything. 2601:5C7:8302:A5F0:64BA:E1DE:C2E8:1EF ( talk) 18:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)