OK, there's a lot of negative comments here, but this is a great idea at a high level. It really is hard to figure out where to do a thing and it's also very easy to get phished. If they can figure out how to help people get all the services they're eligible for that'll be an amazing improvement for the people.
I agree in general, but how do you resolve the problem that people will take the output of the chatbot as authoritative even when it could possibly have errors or miss important nuance? People being lead astray with information from the government could lead to very serious consequences, up to and including imprisonment.
Honest question, I had the same issue when my work wanted me to stick a chatbot in front of our HR portal and I never resolved it to my satisfaction.
What happens now if someone uses traditional search and comes across an outdated wiki or Confluence page with outdated/wrong/bad instructions, or interprets something incorrectly?
Perhaps. But that’s never been the law in the U.S. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/450/785/#tab-opinion-1954000" rel="nofollow">https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/450/785/#tab-opi...
I’m responding to your point that it would be “unacceptable” for a regular government website to provide wrong information. The case I linked to says that the government isn’t responsible for mistakes in what the government tells you about the law. If someone in the social security office says the law is X, but it’s actually Y, then the citizen is still required to follow Y.
maherbeg · · focus · HN ↗
gthrow12345 · · focus · HN ↗
Honest question, I had the same issue when my work wanted me to stick a chatbot in front of our HR portal and I never resolved it to my satisfaction.
fragmede · · focus · HN ↗
BalinKing · · focus · HN ↗
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
BalinKing · · focus · HN ↗
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
gusgus01 · · focus · HN ↗
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
mpyne · · focus · HN ↗