Confederate effect
It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it. This message has remained in place for seven days, so the article may be deleted without further notice. Find sources: "Confederate effect" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR Nominator: Please consider notifying the author/project: {{subst:proposed deletion notify|Confederate effect|concern=reposted non-notable neologism}} ~~~~Timestamp: 20081023075356 07:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Administrators: delete |
Term used to describe the phenomenon of a human considered a machine from their textual discourse (See: The Confederate Effect in Human Machine Textual Interaction: Shah & Henry, 2005) [1]. (Reverse of the Eliza Effect [2], when a machine is considered intelligent or human).
In the first Loebner Prize for Artificial Intelligence [3], in 1991, which deployed restricted conversational one-to-one Turing imitation games [4] - each interrogator chatting to one Artificial Conversational Entity (ACE) at a time, a female ‘confederate’ or hidden-human, chatting on the topic of Shakespeare was considered too knowledgeable, hence considered a machine. The phenomenon was seen in the University of Surrey held 2003 Loebner Prize for Artificial Intelligence, when both hidden-humans, one male and one female, were each ranked as machine by at least one judge: Judge 7 and Judge 9 ranked the female ‘confederate 2’ as “1.00=definitely a machine”; the male ‘confederate 1’ was ranked “1.00=definitely a machine” by Judge 4 and Judge 9. [5] The gender of these two hidden-humans were incorrectly identified (male considered female; woman considered man) in independent transcript analysis ('gender-blurring' phenomenon, see Shah & Henry, 2005). [6]