As ChatbotLifeexplained, developing bots is not the same as building apps. While apps specialise in a number of functions, chatbots have a bigger capacity for inputs. The trick here is to start with a simple objective and focus on doing it really well (i.e., having a minimum viable product or ‘MVP’). From that point onward, businesses can upgrade their bots.
Other companies explore ways they can use chatbots internally, for example for Customer Support, Human Resources, or even in Internet-of-Things (IoT) projects. Overstock.com, for one, has reportedly launched a chatbot named Mila to automate certain simple yet time-consuming processes when requesting for a sick leave. Other large companies such as Lloyds Banking Group, Royal Bank of Scotland, Renault and Citroën are now using automated online assistants instead of call centres with humans to provide a first point of contact. A SaaS chatbot business ecosystem has been steadily growing since the F8 Conference when Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg unveiled that Messenger would allow chatbots into the app. In large companies, like in hospitals and aviation organizations, IT architects are designing reference architectures for Intelligent Chatbots that are used to unlock and share knowledge and experience in the organization more efficiently, and reduce the errors in answers from expert service desks significantly. These Intelligent Chatbots make use of all kinds of artificial intelligence like image moderation and natural language understanding (NLU), natural language generation (NLG), machine learning and deep learning.
In a procedural conversation flow, you define the order of the questions and the bot will ask the questions in the order you defined. You can organize the questions into logical modules to keep the code centralized while staying focused on guiding the conversational. For example, you may design one module to contain the logic that helps the user browse for products and a separate module to contain the logic that helps the user create a new order.
With natural language processing (NLP), a bot can understand what a human is asking. The computer translates the natural language of a question into its own artificial language. It breaks down human inputs into coded units and uses algorithms to determine what is most likely being asked of it. From there, it determines the answer. Then, with natural language generation (NLG), it creates a response. NLG software allows the bot to construct and provide a response in the natural language format.
No one wants to download another restaurant app and put in their credit-card information just to order. Livingston sees an opportunity in being able to come into a restaurant, scan a code, and have the restaurant bot appear in the chat. And instead of typing out all the food a person wants, the person should be able to, for example, easily order the same thing as last time and charge it to the same card.
Natural Language Processing (NLP) is the technological process in which computers derive meaning from natural human inputs. NLP-Based Conversational Bots are machine learning bots that exploit the power of artificial intelligence, which gives them a “learning brain.” These types of conversational bots have the ability to understand natural language, and do not require specific instructions to respond to questions as observed in types of chatbots such as Scripted and Structured Conversational Bots.
In 1950, Alan Turing's famous article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" was published, 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: