Chatbot: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m Amwelladmin moved page Chat bots to Chatbot
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|tech|}}It’s just so obvious when you think about it. Lawyers are ornery, craggy, expensive and equivocal, and if they do give you a straight anwer it will be so hamstrung by [[double negative]]s, [[passive]]s and arcane constructions that most likely you won’t understand what they say anyway.
{{a|tech|{{image|Drunk chatbot|jpg|What’s a cute little [[neural network]] like you doing in a place like this anyway?}}}}{{quote|{{JC on technology}}}}
It’s just so obvious when you think about it.  


Why not just use a chatbot? It works ok for triaging customer complains about Virgin internet doesn’t it?
Lawyers are ornery, craggy, expensive and equivocal, and if they do give you a straight answer it will be so hamstrung by [[double negative]]s, [[passive]]s and arcane constructions that most likely you won’t understand what they say anyway.
 
Why not just use a [[chatbot]]? It works okay for triaging customer complaints about Virgin Media’s godforsaken internet service, doesn’t it?
 
''The Time Blawg'' has an [https://thetimeblawg.com/chatbots/ excellent series] in which its author, the redoubtable Brian Inkster, valiantly tries to engage with chatbots. Well recommended.
{{sa}}
*{{Br|A World Without Work}}
*[[Chess]]
*[[Why is reg tech so disappointing?]]
*[[Innovation]] and the [[innovation paradox]]

Latest revision as of 15:28, 22 February 2023

JC pontificates about technology
An occasional series.
What’s a cute little neural network like you doing in a place like this anyway?
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

“Any sufficiently primitive middle manager will be unable to distinguish a basic chatbot from magic.”

JC’s sixth law of worker entropy

It’s just so obvious when you think about it.

Lawyers are ornery, craggy, expensive and equivocal, and if they do give you a straight answer it will be so hamstrung by double negatives, passives and arcane constructions that most likely you won’t understand what they say anyway.

Why not just use a chatbot? It works okay for triaging customer complaints about Virgin Media’s godforsaken internet service, doesn’t it?

The Time Blawg has an excellent series in which its author, the redoubtable Brian Inkster, valiantly tries to engage with chatbots. Well recommended.

See also