Talk:ELIZA effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"... 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.
- It was made up in the Middle Ages, after words had been used. lysdexia 01:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- Worse, the + symbol is just a whittled-down P.
-
- "A little learning is a dangerous thing."
- — Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism
-
- We are watching myth-making in action. The original poster has no knowledge of the subject (as he admits), but instead of feeling constrained by real-world facts, generates a story made up out of his own head. If lysdexia hadn't responded, how many readers would have taken this fairy tale as the truth? It's not as if the history of mathematical symbols is shrouded in darkest mystery; the poster just didn't bother to check before making his statements. B00P 16:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
[edit] Deletion?
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)
[edit] Revamped ELIZA effect page
Alba recently rewrote the page from scratch and the result is clearly an improvement. However, I'm concerned about a few things:
- There is a list of sources at the bottom of the page, but no references throughout the page. It's not at all clear which statements are well-sourced and which are original research.
- In particular, the section on the effect as a logical fallacy seems nice, but is it original research or can it be found in one of the sources?
- The article now stresses interpretations of computer behavior. I think that's good, but it makes the comments on operator overloading even less coherent. When a user interprets the plus in a computer program, he is not interpreting computer behavior!
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)
[edit] Non-interactive contexts?
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)
- Also, if a character is programmed to *model* an emotion or opinion and act accordingly, is it still correct to describe empathy as the ELIZA effect? (The article notes that ELIZA did not simulate emotions such as "interest" since ELIZA doesn't really keep any state around. But it doesn't really address the case of a chatterbot that DOES simulate emotions.) Somegeek 21:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
