<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: National Australia Bank chat support: the way of the future?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2008/05/national_australia_bank_chat_support_the_way_of_the_future/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2008/05/national_australia_bank_chat_support_the_way_of_the_future/</link>
	<description>tips and downloads to help you at work and play</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:57:15 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Liesl - MyCybertwin</title>
		<link>http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2008/05/national_australia_bank_chat_support_the_way_of_the_future/comment-page-1/#comment-3848</link>
		<dc:creator>Liesl - MyCybertwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 03:33:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifehacker.com.au/tips/2008/05/29/national_australia_bank_chat_support_the_way_of_the_future.html#comment-3848</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Bots have seemed canned un till now because they could only repond to simple FAQ style questions, and had limited knowledge. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This is not an incremental improvement, but a whole new generation of bot technology. Our experience of building advanced chat bots for clients like PBL and NASA&#039;s Phoenix, is that they can hold very human - like conversations, remember context, remember and respond personally to stuff about the user, an have knowledge of vast amounts of detail. They are consistent and deep, and often perform better than a human. Most times, they are indistinguishable when not clearly identified as a bot.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bots have seemed canned un till now because they could only repond to simple FAQ style questions, and had limited knowledge. </p>
<p>This is not an incremental improvement, but a whole new generation of bot technology. Our experience of building advanced chat bots for clients like PBL and NASA&#8217;s Phoenix, is that they can hold very human &#8211; like conversations, remember context, remember and respond personally to stuff about the user, an have knowledge of vast amounts of detail. They are consistent and deep, and often perform better than a human. Most times, they are indistinguishable when not clearly identified as a bot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dance101</title>
		<link>http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2008/05/national_australia_bank_chat_support_the_way_of_the_future/comment-page-1/#comment-3847</link>
		<dc:creator>Dance101</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 13:50:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifehacker.com.au/tips/2008/05/29/national_australia_bank_chat_support_the_way_of_the_future.html#comment-3847</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;The technology is certainly improving, however it is becoming more difficult to actually get resolutions for world problems from these canned AI driven BOTS. When I have a support issue that requires solving I would have to say nothing compares to talking to a *real* person. It might be a great cost cutting measure but ultimately the shareholders will benefit at the customers expense.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The technology is certainly improving, however it is becoming more difficult to actually get resolutions for world problems from these canned AI driven BOTS. When I have a support issue that requires solving I would have to say nothing compares to talking to a *real* person. It might be a great cost cutting measure but ultimately the shareholders will benefit at the customers expense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SirCrumpet</title>
		<link>http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2008/05/national_australia_bank_chat_support_the_way_of_the_future/comment-page-1/#comment-3846</link>
		<dc:creator>SirCrumpet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifehacker.com.au/tips/2008/05/29/national_australia_bank_chat_support_the_way_of_the_future.html#comment-3846</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;OH. GOD. NO.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Dealing with &#039;bots is bad enough through phone support (glares at Telstra), but dealing with computerised support bots on the internet would be terrible, and would just result in more and more canned responses that has nothing to do with what you are asking.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OH. GOD. NO.</p>
<p>Dealing with &#8216;bots is bad enough through phone support (glares at Telstra), but dealing with computerised support bots on the internet would be terrible, and would just result in more and more canned responses that has nothing to do with what you are asking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
