Chatbot: Difference between revisions

483 bytes added ,  22 February 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{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.
{{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 okay for triaging customer complaints 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]]