The confederate effect is the phenomenon of people falsely classifying human intelligence as machine (or artificial) intelligence during

Turing test The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1949,. Turing wrote about the ‘imitation game’ centrally and extensively throughout his 1950 text, but apparently retired the term thereafter. He referred to ‘ iste ...

s. For example, in the

Loebner Prize The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round ...

during which a tester conducts a text exchange with one human and one artificial-intelligence

chatbot A chatbot (originally chatterbot) is a software application or web interface designed to have textual or spoken conversations. Modern chatbots are typically online and use generative artificial intelligence systems that are capable of main ...

and is tasked to identify which is which, the confederate effect describes the tester inaccurately identifying the human as the machine.The Confederate Effect in Human Machine Textual Interaction
/ref> The confederate effect is the reverse of the ELIZA effect, which

Sherry Turkle Sherry Turkle (born June 18, 1948) is an American sociologist. She is the Abby Rockefeller Mauzé Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She obtained a BA in social studies and lat ...

states is humans' "more general tendency to treat responsive computer programs as more intelligent than they really are": that is, anthropomorphizing. The phenomenon was seen in the

University of Surrey The University of Surrey is a public research university in Guildford, Surrey, England. The university received its Royal Charter, royal charter in 1966, along with a Plate glass university, number of other institutions following recommendations ...

2003

for Artificial Intelligence, when both confederate (tested) humans, one male and one female, were each ranked as machine by at least one judge. More precisely, 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 9.2003 Loebner Prize results
/ref> Also, 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).

Notes

References

* {{Refend Human–computer interaction