Beyond users, bots must also please the messaging apps themselves. Take Facebook Messenger. Executives have confirmed that advertisements within Discover — their hub for finding new bots to engage with — will be the main way Messenger monetizes its 1.3 billion monthly active users. If standing out among the 100,000 other bots on the platform wasn't difficult enough, we can assume Messenger will only feature bots that don't detract people from the platform.
Dan uses an example of a text to speech bot that a user might operate within a car to turn windscreen wipers on and off, and lights on and off. The users’ natural language query is processed by the conversation service to work out the intent and the entity, and then using the context, replies through the dialog in a way that the user can understand.

Modern chatbots are frequently used in situations in which simple interactions with only a limited range of responses are needed. This can include customer service and marketing applications, where the chatbots can provide answers to questions on topics such as products, services or company policies. If a customer's questions exceed the abilities of the chatbot, that customer is usually escalated to a human operator.
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:
×