That's a different premise than simply being pessimistic about chatbots as an UI paradigm in general.
That's a different premise than simply being pessimistic about chatbots as an UI paradigm in general.
Based on how low companies are willing to go to in the support space, it won't be at all surprising when all of them move to some form of ChatGPT-enabled crapbot, specially adjusted to maximise whatever metric the company wants at huge financial and psychological cost to the user. It's gotten so bad it's hard not to think of employees of such scummy companies as scum for supporting and enabling this toxic ad-driven hell.
Of course if you ask it to do something impossible with our product, the answer is a very long thing telling you where to click, which will never work.
It just won't ever say "can't be done".
When asking things that can in fact be done, it seems to get right the general direction, but the details are wrong. Of course a user without in depth knowledge will not know that.
Our CEO loves it.
> Our CEO loves it.
Of course, it probably saves them thousands in support salaries. Of course, it's a little harder to quantify how much it's costing them in lost goodwill and sales, but who cares about the long term, right?Find top queries that should have but didn't have this answer and add it to the examples of your bot.
If they did, they would have asked ChatGPT or another chat assistant instead.
"When they do come directly to your site or app, they are not looking for a chatbot. They are looking for a UI that works. They know why they came to you. They expect your UI to do what it should do."But part of that is Siri, Google Assistant, et al. often just say "here's a website" when you ask a question like "Hey Siri, does Walgreens on Blob Street have the FreeStyle Libre 3 in stock?"
But in what TFA describes, Siri would do something like
>I need to ask walgreens.com, is it OK to send your question to them?
Yeah ok
>Walgreens.com says yes the Blob Street Walgreens has the FreeStyle Libre 3 in stock
That also sounds pretty dangerous though
The headline is exactly the kind of thing the largely anti-AI attitudes online today will blindly vote up, but the message of the article couldn't be further from the appearance of the headline.
It's about the nuanced infrastructure of a future where chatbots exist in multiple layers, not about a future without chatbots.
No normal person will care what the article says when reading that headline, they've already been burned by modern support.