Lack contextual awareness. Not everyone has all of the data that Google has – but chatbots today lack the awareness that we expect them to have. We assume that chatbot technology will know our IP address, browsing history, previous purchases, but that is just not the case today. I would argue that many chatbots even lack basic connection to other data silos to improve their ability to answer questions.
As AOL's David Shingy writes in Adweek, "The challenge [with chatbots] will be thinking about creative from a whole different view: Can we have creative that scales? That customizes itself? We find ourselves hurtling toward another handoff from man to machine -- what larger system of creative or complex storytelling structure can I design such that a machine can use it appropriately and effectively?"
Die Herausforderung bei der Programmierung eines Chatbots liegt in der sinnvollen Zusammenstellung der Erkennungen. Präzise Erkennungen für spezielle Fragen werden dabei ergänzt durch globale Erkennungen, die sich nur auf ein Wort beziehen und als Fallback dienen können (der Bot erkennt grob das Thema, aber nicht die genaue Frage). Manche Chatbot-Programme unterstützen die Entwicklung dabei über Priorisierungsränge, die einzelnen Antworten zuzuordnen sind. Zur Programmierung eines Chatbots werden meist Entwicklungsumgebungen verwendet, die es erlauben, Fragen zu kategorisieren, Antworten zu priorisieren und Erkennungen zu verwalten[5][6]. Dabei lassen manche auch die Gestaltung eines Gesprächskontexts zu, der auf Erkennungen und möglichen Folgeerkennungen basiert („Möchten Sie mehr darüber erfahren?“). Ist die Wissensbasis aufgebaut, wird der Bot in möglichst vielen Trainingsgesprächen mit Nutzern der Zielgruppe optimiert[7]. Fehlerhafte Erkennungen, Erkennungslücken und fehlende Antworten lassen sich so erkennen[8]. Meist bietet die Entwicklungsumgebung Analysewerkzeuge, um die Gesprächsprotokolle effizient auswerten zu können[9]. Ein guter Chatbot erreicht auf diese Weise eine mittlere Erkennungsrate von mehr als 70 % der Fragen. Er wird damit von den meisten Nutzern als unterhaltsamer Gegenpart akzeptiert.

Human touch. Chatbots, providing an interface similar to human-to-human interaction, are more intuitive and so less difficult to use than a standard banking mobile application. They doesn't require any additional software installation and are more adaptive as able to be personalized during the exploitation by the means of machine learning. Chatbots are instant and so much faster that phone calls, shown to be considered as tedious in some studies. Then they satisfy both speed and personalization requirement while interacting with a bank.
In a traditional application, the user interface (UI) consists of a series of screens, and a single app or website can use one or more screens as needed to exchange information with the user. Most applications start with a main screen where users initially land, and that screen provides navigation that leads to other screens for various functions like starting a new order, browsing products, or looking for help.
In so many ways I think chatbots are only just getting started – their potential is much underestimated at present. A big challenge is for chatbots mature so that they do more than is possible as a result of content entry wizards. If your content is created with a few easy clicks, it is unlikely to be much inspiration to anyone – and to date, despite much work in the field, the ability to emulated the creative open ended nature of real intellingence has seen only very partial success.
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: