The bot (which also offers users the opportunity to chat with your friendly neighborhood Spiderman) isn’t a true conversational agent, in the sense that the bot’s responses are currently a little limited; this isn’t a truly “freestyle” chatbot. For example, in the conversation above, the bot didn’t recognize the reply as a valid response – kind of a bummer if you’re hoping for an immersive experience.
There is no one right answer to this question, as the best solution will depend upon the specifics of your scenario and how the user would reasonably expect the bot to respond. However, as your conversation complexity increases dialogs become harder to manage. For complex branchings situations, it may be easier to create your own flow of control logic to keep track of your user's conversation.
There is a general worry that the bot can’t understand the intent of the customer. The bots are first trained with the actual data. Most companies that already have a chatbot must be having logs of conversations. Developers use that logs to analyze what customers are trying to ask and what does that mean. With a combination of Machine Learning models and tools built, developers match questions that customer asks and answers with the best suitable answer. For example: If a customer is asking “Where is my payment receipt?” and “I have not received a payment receipt”, mean the same thing. Developers strength is in training the models so that the chatbot is able to connect both of those questions to correct intent and as an output produces the correct answer. If there is no extensive data available, different APIs data can be used to train the chatbot.
The chatbot design is the process that defines the interaction between the user and the chatbot.[31] The chatbot designer will define the chatbot personality, the questions that will be asked to the users, and the overall interaction.[32] [33] It can be viewed as a subset of the conversational design.In order to speed up this process, designers can use dedicated chatbot design tools, that allow for immediate preview, team collaboration and video export.[34] An important part of the chatbot design is also centered around user testing. User testing can be performed following the same principles that guide the user testing of graphical interfaces.[35]
A chatbot works in a couple of ways: set guidelines and machine learning. A chatbot that functions with a set of guidelines in place is limited in its conversation. It can only respond to a set number of requests and vocabulary, and is only as intelligent as its programming code. An example of a limited bot is an automated banking bot that asks the caller some questions to understand what the caller wants done. The bot would make a command like “Please tell me what I can do for you by saying account balances, account transfer, or bill payment.” If the customer responds with "credit card balance," the bot would not understand the request and would proceed to either repeat the command or transfer the caller to a human assistant.
The process of building a chatbot can be divided into two main tasks: understanding the user's intent and producing the correct answer. The first task involves understanding the user input. In order to properly understand a user input in a free text form, a Natural Language Processing Engine can be used.[36] The second task may involve different approaches depending on the type of the response that the chatbot will generate.
In 1950, Alan Turing's famous article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" was published,[7] which proposed what is now called the Turing test as a criterion of intelligence. This criterion depends on the ability of a computer program to impersonate a human in a real-time written conversation with a human judge, sufficiently well that the judge is unable to distinguish reliably—on the basis of the conversational content alone—between the program and a real human. The notoriety of Turing's proposed test stimulated great interest in Joseph Weizenbaum's program ELIZA, published in 1966, which seemed to be able to fool users into believing that they were conversing with a real human. However Weizenbaum himself did not claim that ELIZA was genuinely intelligent, and the introduction to his paper presented it more as a debunking exercise: