Die meisten Chatbots greifen auf eine vorgefertigte Datenbank, die sog. Wissensdatenbank mit Antworten und Erkennungsmustern, zurück. Das Programm zerlegt die eingegebene Frage zuerst in Einzelteile und verarbeitet diese nach vorgegebenen Regeln. Dabei können Schreibweisen harmonisiert (Groß- und Kleinschreibung, Umlaute etc.), Satzzeichen interpretiert und Tippfehler ausgeglichen werden (Preprocessing). Im zweiten Schritt erfolgt dann die eigentliche Erkennung der Frage. Diese wird üblicherweise über Erkennungsmuster gelöst, manche Chatbots erlauben darüber hinaus die Verschachtelung verschiedener Mustererkennungen über sogenannte Makros. Wird eine zur Frage passende Antwort erkannt, kann diese noch angepasst werden (beispielsweise können skriptgesteuert berechnete Daten eingefügt werden – „In Ulm sind es heute 37 °C.“). Diesen Vorgang nennt man Postprocessing. Die daraus entstandene Antwort wird dann ausgegeben. Moderne kommerzielle Chatbot-Programme erlauben darüber hinaus den direkten Zugriff auf die gesamte Verarbeitung über eingebaute Skriptsprachen und Programmierschnittstellen.
A toolkit can be integral to getting started in building chatbots, so insert, BotKit. It gives a helping hand to developers making bots for Facebook Messenger, Slack, Twilio, and more. This BotKit can be used to create clever, conversational applications which map out the way that real humans speak. This essential detail differentiates from some of its other chatbot toolkit counterparts.
“There is hope that consumers will be keen on experimenting with bots to make things happen for them. It used to be like that in the mobile app world 4+ years ago. When somebody told you back then… ‘I have built an app for X’… You most likely would give it a try. Now, nobody does this. It is probably too late to build an app company as an indie developer. But with bots… consumers’ attention spans are hopefully going to be wide open/receptive again!” — Niko Bonatsos, Managing Director at General Catalyst
This is where most applications of NLP struggle, and not just chatbots. Any system or application that relies upon a machine’s ability to parse human speech is likely to struggle with the complexities inherent in elements of speech such as metaphors and similes. Despite these considerable limitations, chatbots are becoming increasingly sophisticated, responsive, and more “natural.”
Chatbots are used in a variety of sectors and built for different purposes. There are retail bots designed to pick and order groceries, weather bots that give you weather forecast of the day or week, and simply friendly bots that just talk to people in need of a friend. The fintech sector also uses chatbots to make consumers’ inquiries and application for financial services easier. A small business lender in Montreal, Thinking Capital, uses a virtual assistant to provide customers with 24/7 assistance through the Facebook Messenger. A small business hoping to get a loan from the company need only answer key qualification questions asked by the bot in order to be deemed eligible to receive up to $300,000 in financing.

Want to initiate the conversation with customers from your Facebook page rather than wait for them to come to you? Facebook lets you do that. You can load email addresses and phone numbers from your subscriber list into custom Facebook audiences. To discourage spam, Facebook charges a fee to use this service. You can then send a message directly from your page to the audience you created.
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: