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
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|}}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 ok for triaging customer complains 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 17:29, 11 July 2019

The JC pontificates about technology
An occasional series.


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

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?