Chatfuel is a platform that lets you build your own Chatbot for Messenger (and Telegram) for free. The only limit is if you pass more than 100,000 conversations per month, but for most businesses that won't be an issue. No understanding of code is required and it has a simple drag-and-drop interface. Think Wix/Squarespace for bots (side note: I have zero affiliation with Chatfuel).
Simple chatbots, or bots, are easy to build. In fact, many coders have automated bot-building processes and templates. The majority of these processes follow simple code formulas that the designer plans, and the bots provide the responses coded into it—and only those responses. Simplistic bots (built in five minutes or less) typically respond to one or two very specific commands.
If you visit a Singapore government website in the near future, chances are you’ll be using a chatbot to access the services you need, as part of the country’s Smart Nation initiative. In Australia, Deakin University students now access campus services using its ‘Genie’ virtual assistant platform, made up of chatbots, artificial intelligence (AI), voice recognition and predictive analytics.

Open domain chatbots tends to talk about general topics and give appropriate responses. In other words, the knowledge domain is receptive to a wider pool of knowledge. However, these bots are difficult to perfect because language is so versatile. Conversations on social media sites such as Twitter and Reddit are typically considered open domain — they can go in virtually any direction. Furthermore, the whole context around a query requires common sense to understand many new topics properly, which is even harder for computers to grasp.
Keep it conversational: Chatbots help make it easy for users to find the information they need. Users can ask questions in a conversational way, and the chatbots can help them refine their searches through their responses and follow-up questions. Having had substantial experience with personal assistants on their smartphones and elsewhere, users today expect this level of informal interaction. When chatbot users are happy, the organizations employing the chatbots benefit.
Furthermore, major banks today are facing increasing pressure to remain competitive as challenger banks and fintech startups crowd the industry. As a result, these banks should consider implementing chatbots wherever human employees are performing basic and time-consuming tasks. This would cut down on salary and benefit costs, improve back-office efficiency, and deliver better customer care.
Ursprünglich rein textbasiert, haben sich Chatbots durch immer stärker werdende Spracherkennung und Sprachsynthese weiterentwickelt und bieten neben reinen Textdialogen auch vollständig gesprochene Dialoge oder einen Mix aus beidem an. Zusätzlich können auch weitere Medien genutzt werden, beispielsweise Bilder und Videos. Gerade mit der starken Nutzung von mobilen Endgeräten (Smartphones, Wearables) wird diese Möglichkeit der Nutzung von Chatbots weiter zunehmen (Stand: Nov. 2016).[10] Mit fortschreitender Verbesserung sind Chatbots dabei nicht nur auf wenige eingegrenzte Themenbereiche (Wettervorhersage, Nachrichten usw.) begrenzt, sondern ermöglichen erweiterte Dialoge und Dienstleistungen für den Nutzer. Diese entwickeln sich so zu Intelligenten Persönlichen Assistenten.
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:
×