Chatbot: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| 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|}}{{JC on technology}}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. | ||
Why not just use a [[chatbot]]? It works okay for triaging customer complaints about Virgin internet doesn’t it? | Why not just use a [[chatbot]]? It works okay for triaging customer complaints about Virgin internet doesn’t it? | ||
Revision as of 14:59, 12 March 2020
|
JC pontificates about technology
An occasional series.
|
“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 anwer 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 internet doesn’t it?