There are obvious revenue opportunities around subscriptions, advertising and commerce. If bots are designed to save you time that you’d normally spend on mundane tasks or interactions, it’s possible they’ll seem valuable enough to justify a subscription fee. If bots start to replace some of the functions that you’d normally use a search engine like Google for, it’s easy to imagine some sort of advertising component. Or if bots help you shop, the bot-maker could arrange for a commission.
Search for the bot you want to add. At the time of this writing, there are about a dozen bots available, with more being added every day. Chat bots are available for customer service, news, ordering, and more, depending on the company that releases it. For example, you could get news from the CNN bot and order flowers from the 1-800-flowers bot. The process for finding a bot varies depending on your device:[1]
One key reason: The technology that powers bots, artificial intelligence software, is improving dramatically, thanks to heightened interest from key Silicon Valley powers like Facebook and Google. That AI enables computers to process language — and actually converse with humans — in ways they never could before. It came about from unprecedented advancements in software (Google’s Go-beating program, for example) and hardware capabilities.
Consider why someone would turn to a bot in the first place. According to an upcoming HubSpot research report, of the 71% of people willing to use messaging apps to get customer assistance, many do it because they want their problem solved, fast. And if you've ever used (or possibly profaned) Siri, you know there's a much lower tolerance for machines to make mistakes.
Getting the remaining values (information that user would have provided to bot’s previous questions, bot’s previous action, results of the API call etc.,) is little bit tricky and here is where the dialogue manager component takes over. These feature values will need to be extracted from the training data that the user will define in the form of sample conversations between the user and the bot. These sample conversations should be prepared in such a fashion that they capture most of the possible conversational flows while pretending to be both an user and a bot.
24/7 digital support. An instant and always accessible assistant is assumed by the more and more digital consumer of the new era.[34] Unlike humans, chatbots once developed and installed don't have a limited workdays, holidays or weekends and are ready to attend queries at any hour of the day. It helps to the customer to avoid waiting of a company's agent to be available. Thus, the customer doesn't have to wait for the company executive to help them. This also lets companies keep an eye on the traffic during the non-working hours and reach out to them later.[41]
Aside from being practical and time-convenient, chatbots guarantee a huge reduction in support costs. According to IBM, the influence of chatbots on CRM is staggering.  They provide a 99 percent improvement rate in response times, therefore, cutting resolution from 38 hours to five minutes. Also, they caused a massive drop in cost per query from $15-$200 (human agents) to $1 (virtual agents). Finally, virtual agents can take up an average of 30,000+ consumers per month.
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:
×