Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chatbots – Igniting Division of Labour in AI

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Chatbots – Igniting Division of Labour in AI

#11

Post by palakchokshi »

surfaceTensi0n wrote: post #5
palakchokshi wrote: post #2

I like this idea a lot and have been thinking about this myself. Here are some questions I've been struggling with: 1. What would be the incentive for the bot developers to adhere to a standard that would basically encourage a user to download a meta bot rather than the bot developer's own bot? Especially once they have spent significant resources to develop and enhance their bot before any standards were in place. T…

I think you may be overthinking 3 a bit. You only need to use the new bot enough to get enough info for the normal ranking method to work. Some simple solutions: 1. When a new bot is added, always use that bot first. This assumes that the user added it intentionally despite already having bots for that function. 2. If bots are ranked too closely, pick one at random. 3. If bots are ranked too closely, ask the user whi…

1. The idea of a meta-bot that the OP puts forward doesn't require user to add any bot. If user had to add every bot manually then it takes away a key advantage of a meta-bot. One bot to rule them all.

From what I (mis)understood, a meta-bot would internally have "friended" other bots and user only adds the meta-bot and interacts with the meta-bot which then sends the queries to its friended bots. Though now that I think about it I probably did misunderstand it. :)

Re: Chatbots – Igniting Division of Labour in AI

#12

Post by mcintyre1994 »

aleyan wrote: post #4

Do people actually prefer talking to bots instead of interacting with apps? Bots don't need to be installed usually, so that makes them lower barrier, but neither do websites. They are useful when you want to query them with tasks that have a lot of degrees of freedom. These tasks may be easier to describe in human language where the user highlights the important parts forgoing the need to have a complicated GUI with…

Websites don't need to be installed, but websites that aren't Facebook aren't where Facebook want their users to go.

I'm wondering whether this is really an Apps 2.0 play but in disguise because apps burnt all their user goodwill a long time ago - and they have a permission request thing too. I don't know anybody who intentionally uses any Facebook apps (or if they even still exist) and I doubt the current top tier companies have building one anywhere on their priority list.

This brings that functionality back to Facebook, not some other website or app, without the baggage associated with the old Facebook app stuff.

Re: Chatbots – Igniting Division of Labour in AI

#13

Post by pelumi »

palakchokshi wrote: post #11
surfaceTensi0n wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be overthinking 3 a bit. You only need to use the new bot enough to get enough info for the normal ranking method to work. Some simple solutions: 1. When a new bot is added, always use that bot first. This assumes that the user added it intentionally despite already having bots for that function. 2. If bots are ranked too closely, pick one at random. 3. If bots are ranked too closely, ask the user whi…

1. The idea of a meta-bot that the OP puts forward doesn't require user to add any bot. If user had to add every bot manually then it takes away a key advantage of a meta-bot. One bot to rule them all. From what I (mis)understood, a meta-bot would internally have "friended" other bots and user only adds the meta-bot and interacts with the meta-bot which then sends the queries to its friended bots. Though now that I t…

Your description is what I had in mind. The user won't be the one to add the bots, the meta-bot has a strong knowledge of the 'chatbot community' and knows who is good at solving problems in different categories.

The proposition of allowing the user 'add' bots is also quite interesting but I've not given much thoughts to that.

Re: Chatbots – Igniting Division of Labour in AI

#14

Post by palakchokshi »

pelumi wrote: post #13
palakchokshi wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The idea of a meta-bot that the OP puts forward doesn't require user to add any bot. If user had to add every bot manually then it takes away a key advantage of a meta-bot. One bot to rule them all. From what I (mis)understood, a meta-bot would internally have "friended" other bots and user only adds the meta-bot and interacts with the meta-bot which then sends the queries to its friended bots. Though now that I t…

Your description is what I had in mind. The user won't be the one to add the bots, the meta-bot has a strong knowledge of the 'chatbot community' and knows who is good at solving problems in different categories. The proposition of allowing the user 'add' bots is also quite interesting but I've not given much thoughts to that.

If user is allowed to add bots then you take away one thing from the meta-bot. The task of Discovering relevant bots. At the same time you limit the meta-bot from helping you out with a task if a bot for that task has not been installed by the user.

The meta-bot could technically suggest what bots to install if it does not find an installed bot to perform a task. In the current world of bots I think this would be a more optimal approach rather than a true meta-bot to bot transparent communication.

Also take into consideration that a meta-bot should provide proper attribution to whichever bot it chooses to perform the task otherwise you open yourself up to copyright infringement or equivalent.

Re: Chatbots – Igniting Division of Labour in AI

#15

Post by palakchokshi »

pelumi wrote: post #13
palakchokshi wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The idea of a meta-bot that the OP puts forward doesn't require user to add any bot. If user had to add every bot manually then it takes away a key advantage of a meta-bot. One bot to rule them all. From what I (mis)understood, a meta-bot would internally have "friended" other bots and user only adds the meta-bot and interacts with the meta-bot which then sends the queries to its friended bots. Though now that I t…

Your description is what I had in mind. The user won't be the one to add the bots, the meta-bot has a strong knowledge of the 'chatbot community' and knows who is good at solving problems in different categories. The proposition of allowing the user 'add' bots is also quite interesting but I've not given much thoughts to that.

If you want to take this offline I've updated my email address in my profile. Don't know if you can see it.

Re: Chatbots – Igniting Division of Labour in AI

#16

Post by pelumi »

palakchokshi wrote: post #15
pelumi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your description is what I had in mind. The user won't be the one to add the bots, the meta-bot has a strong knowledge of the 'chatbot community' and knows who is good at solving problems in different categories. The proposition of allowing the user 'add' bots is also quite interesting but I've not given much thoughts to that.

If you want to take this offline I've updated my email address in my profile. Don't know if you can see it.

Yeah, we should indeed take this offline. I can't see your email, you can reach me on lumzor [at] gmail [dot] com.

Re: Chatbots – Igniting Division of Labour in AI

#17

Post by surfaceTensi0n »

pelumi wrote: post #13
palakchokshi wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The idea of a meta-bot that the OP puts forward doesn't require user to add any bot. If user had to add every bot manually then it takes away a key advantage of a meta-bot. One bot to rule them all. From what I (mis)understood, a meta-bot would internally have "friended" other bots and user only adds the meta-bot and interacts with the meta-bot which then sends the queries to its friended bots. Though now that I t…

Your description is what I had in mind. The user won't be the one to add the bots, the meta-bot has a strong knowledge of the 'chatbot community' and knows who is good at solving problems in different categories. The proposition of allowing the user 'add' bots is also quite interesting but I've not given much thoughts to that.

That's interesting. I guess I just assumed the user would have to add the bots. Otherwise how would they know what the meta-bot is capable of doing? Also, discovery of bots, especially ones that aren't "mainstream" (I'm thinking less utilitarian and more art/fun, here) or part of specific bot networks/marketplaces, would be harder. Allowing users to at least also add their own seems like it would be a useful feature.
Post reply on HN