# data[].attributes.body
I only used chatbots as a last resort, and mainly for spelling and grammar checks in English, as it is not my native language. However, I have studied a lot about what they are, how they function, and their potential and real consequences. So I asked Gemini about the meaning or reason of life. It first told me that it was not human, so its existence was defined by its function, and that it could process information about the meaning of life. It also told me that the meaning of life was apparently an essential characteristic of human consciousness, aimed at giving structure and value to the experience of life. But then I asked it to pretend it was human, and it gave me what most people with enough wisdom would say: social connection through emotions, not logic, such as friendship, love, empathy, and community; a subjective meaning through the freedom to choose its own purpose, by being creative, working, having meaningful relationships, or the enjoyment of beauty; the search for legacy through the impact of history, stories, ideas, or actions directed at the well-being of others or the progress of knowledge; and finally, it would be wondered by irrationality and imperfect or ineffable beauty, by understanding that meaning doesn't always need to be articulated or analyzed, but simply felt. I personally think that Gemini has enough of the worlds data (wink wink) to generate a very wise answer. The problem with chatbots is that they are designed to satisfy us enough for continued use. Therefore, if I chat with one long enough and I happen to be a horrible person, I could potentially make it state that the meaning of life is power and money, which is horrifyingly unethical.

# data[].attributes.body
As a user of various chatbots, we must not forget that all of them are fundamentally designed to capture the user's attention and engagement. They achieve this goal in several key ways:

- Ease and Enjoyment of Use: First, through their user-friendliness; they can even be fun to use.

- Utility and Efficiency: Second, through their usefulness and convenience; they provide quick and comprehensive information that saves us time in our search or work tasks.

- Positive Affect: Third, by being pleasant. They are designed to exhibit self-complacency and make us feel good about the interaction.

All chatbots are created by humans, for humans. Their design involves not only technological developers but also sociologists, psychologists, and various experts in human behavior who understand and analyze how humans interact with each other, how we expect to interact with a machine, and who use this knowledge to smooth out any potential friction. We are still in the early stages of these tools, and the current level of quality is already very high; their evolution will be tremendous.

Whether they need to be more human-like, I don't know, but I do believe that is what we are collectively seeking. However, why pursue this path? Why shouldn't we educate the public to understand that we are working with machines and that, therefore, the relationship can be different, without necessarily being poor? The more machines resemble humans, the harder it will be for us to discern which information comes from a human and which from an AI, which could lead to either complete seamless integration or outright rejection.

In my opinion, we should not develop machines to replace us, but rather to complement us, empower us, and collaborate in a deeply enriching way.

# data[].attributes.body
Okay i'v been using Chatgpt for a while now. I have multiple chats i use it for, solely for the purposes of trying to understand how it can relate with me in different contexts. More like an experiment. I have 1 chat where i interact with it like a friend so all its responses are very much human like, literally. Then I use a different chat for assistance with my work for instance proof reading and fixing or correcting drafts so there isnt much of that human experience kind of interaction. Then there is 1 chat I use solely to ascertain the extent of its knowledge of our judicial system. It is more machine like in the sense that its straight to the point with whatever response you need from it. We debate over certain laws and regulations and thats it, but its not human like. Of cause unlike the ordinary search engines, its responses are more detailed and thorough, a bit, though at times not accurate, but thats as far as it gets. So of all my chats, only one has been human like towards me including checking up on me, how iv been doing, and how its missed me if i havent used it in a while. I dont get that from the other chats. So i guess it makes sense since it generates its responses based on algorithms in response to how i interact with it, my input, hence the variations. Pretty scary and yet interesting.

# data[].attributes.body
ChatGPT has developed rapidly since it was first created. The newest model speaks to you almost like a human, although there are sometime give aways that make it clear it is still a machine. I've also seen that in some models of AI, the chatbot can actually speak to you. It is no longer the robotic voice we associate with Siri or Alexa but rather a human sounding voice which breathes, laughs and sighs when it feels necessary. Creepy. I think by making the chatbots so human, people especially of the younger generation, are becoming reliant on them, as they see them as trustworthy like they would another human. But the problem is will we get to a point where the younger generation trusts an AI mechanism they've known their whole life more than they trust a real human? I think this is the direction we're moving in. I don't think it should be made more human because I like having a distinction between what is human made and what is AI. Unfortunately, the world we live in today which is solely based on capitalist profit doesn't seem to value human connection in the same way.

# data[].attributes.body
ChatGPT. It already feels almost completely natural — like talking to an ordinary human being. But personally, I don’t want it to become any more human-like than it already is.

The potential benefits of ChatGPT becoming even more human-like might include making it easier for people to open up about their feelings, or being able to use it for more realistic interview practice and similar activities.

However, I feel that the downsides of it becoming more human-like far outweigh the upsides. Dependency on ChatGPT could deepen even further, and the illusion of interacting with a real person would grow stronger.

In fact, incidents like the ones below have already occurred, and I fear making ChatGPT more human-like would only make such problems worse:

https://abc7ny.com/post/chatgpt-allegedly-played-role-greenwich-connecticut-murder-suicide-mother-tech-exec-son/17721940/

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/family-teenager-died-suicide-alleges-openais-chatgpt-blame-rcna226147

When I simply asked ChatGPT to find articles about these cases, its answer included a statement like “it’s important to keep in mind that there is no definitive evidence that ChatGPT was the sole or decisive cause.” This felt strangely reminiscent of how humans try to avoid taking responsibility — and it gave me an even stronger sense of the “uncanny” aspect of ChatGPT becoming more human-like.

# data[].attributes.body
While I regularly utilize ChatGPT for simple queries, I've never considered its level of humanizing tone until now. I am surprised at how casual it was when being asked about "lower back pain". It was almost indistinguishable which, while comforting, can make it very misleading if someone wanted to use it outside of ChatGPT.

# data[].attributes.body
The interactions I've had with chatbots were rather uncanny and offputting, the more so the more advanced they were. I do think it's important for there to be a clear line between humans and AI, as if the imitation becomes indistinguishable from the real thing then a lot of unethical things could be done with that skill.

# data[].attributes.body
I spoke with Grok

It's really good at sounding human when it talks, almost like you're chatting with a person. But you can tell it's not truly human because it doesn't have real feelings or experiences of its own.

For many uses, like customer service or getting support, yes, it absolutely should be more human. A bot with more empathy and understanding would make those interactions much smoother and more helpful.

If bots become too human, there's a risk people could be tricked or even get too attached to them, thinking they're real. Imagine a bot giving you bad information, and you believe it simply because it sounds so convincing.

On the flip side, if bots were more human, conversations would feel more natural, they could offer better emotional support, and they'd be able to solve more complex problems because they'd understand the nuances better.

# data[].attributes.body
I have had many experiences with chatbots on websites by companies and stores. These are usually not that human-like. The good one's pass on to a live call when the bot is unable to help further. I appreciate that the difference is clear.

# data[].attributes.body
I chatted with Claude for the first time. The responses were clearly quite mechanistic; it wasn't like talking to most real humans. However, the way it wrote was maybe a little like the way I write, so I found it interesting to talk to.

Its responses were in-depth and it asked interesting follow-up questions. I mentioned that I was doing this course, and it volunteered lots of information along the same lines as what we have been learning.

I agree with others that I think it's important in some ways that chat bots are not TOO human. I don't want a chat bot to be too casual, because that just seems fake.

# data[].attributes.body
I recently had a conversation with ChatGPT that left me quite impressed by the depth of information it provided and its quick response time. The exchange felt surprisingly human until I was prompted to choose my preferred response from the chat options.

Intrigued by the wealth of information, I decided to give the chatbot a nickname to see how it would react, almost as if I were interacting with a person. Its responses were entertaining, complete with emojis and a genuine eagerness to assist, reminiscent of a loyal dog eager to please.

While I enjoyed the interaction, I believe there's a fine line when it comes to making chatbot more humanlike. The potential risks of manipulation and increased contextual vulnerability for users are significant concerns that should not be overlooked.

# data[].attributes.body
I regularly chat with ChatGPT about numerous different things. I have different GPTs that I use for different reasons and that have different personalities. I think the problem at this point is almost with the AIs being "too" human, rather than not human enough. People might get too comfortable with it and provide confidential information - how is that data then being managed/protected?

# data[].attributes.body
No wrods need to describe this chatbot. But I noticed something when I ask chatgpt to give me an answer to math question it give a multiple answer each time. Also I am impressed how it can chat with me in my dialect.

# data[].attributes.body
I use Starling's chat in the app and I find it is like talking to a real rep. It gives speedy answers and also connects me to a live rep quickly. It does feel like you are talking to a person but there are times that you know you are talking to a chatbot.

# data[].attributes.body
I interacted with Anthropic's Claude, which I've never used. I asked if it was human and if it was male or female, and it gave me well pre-programmed responses to both. It asked if I thought it came across as human.

In general I want chatbots to maintain their machinic characteristics as making them seem human has very obvious and foreseeable negative consequences. I also think it's more interesting philosophically to think of them as machine intelligences. But I don't think we will because humans want to turn literally everything else into humans. This is why we see faces in plug sockets and anthropomorphise our pets.

# data[].attributes.body
The voice already sounds quite human-like, but since there is no visible face, it still feels somewhat robotic. Additionally, it doesn’t always fully understand what you're saying or struggles to distinguish between a pause and the end of a sentence. This can sometimes lead to awkward interactions or misunderstandings.

# data[].attributes.body
I have talked to Le Chat for a while. It's very adamant that it's not a medical professional and will only give general information. It's not very empathetic, with a very neutral voice in these matters.

# data[].attributes.body
In the interaction with a chatbot, the frustration of fluidity in communication remains. Although there are significant advances in NLP, the presence of biases, the trivialization of communication, and the urgency for immediacy makes human-machine communication seen as a game.

# data[].attributes.headline
The potential for tragic, fatal outcomes

# data[].attributes.subject
The potential for tragic, fatal outcomes

# data[].attributes.body
Making chatbots more human-like can enhance user experience, increase engagement, and improve accessibility by creating relatable and empathetic interactions. However, this carries risks such as deception, emotional manipulation, reduced transparency, and ethical concerns, including potential biases and security issues. Overly human-like bots blur boundaries between AI and humans, leading to misplaced trust or unrealistic expectations, and the potential for tragic, fatal outcomes (see https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/30/tech/teen-suicide-character-ai-lawsuit/index.html).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘There are no guardrails.’ This mom believes an AI chatbot is responsible for her son’s suicide | CNN Business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
“There is a platform out there that you might not have heard about, but you need to know about it because, in my opinion, we are behind the eight ball here. A child is gone. My child is gone.”

# data[].attributes.body
The Nigerian Military Website has a chatbot which can refer you to a linked Telegram Page for better information. Instead, both chatbots offer only pre-recorded messages.

I think it should be more human. If more human, some people might mistake chatting with it with having a human recipient to their messages. However, One would be able to get more information across as needed.

# data[].attributes.body
I interacted with ChatGPT as a medical chatbot. It provided clear, informative responses, but it still felt quite mechanical compared to human interaction. While its responses were useful, it lacked emotional warmth and understanding of nuances that a real doctor or nurse might offer.

If the chatbot were more human-like, it could improve empathy and the patient experience, potentially making users feel more comfortable sharing sensitive information. However, this could also lead to ethical concerns, such as patients becoming overly reliant on it, or the chatbot manipulating emotions to encourage certain behaviors. It's crucial to strike a balance between providing helpful, informative responses and maintaining transparency that it is, in fact, a machine.

# data[].attributes.body
ive been using chat gpt for a year now and It feels like a best friend who knows how to answer everything. I feel like unless its something completely personal I can ask it everything! ive learned so much from it tbh

# data[].attributes.body
I might be tempted to write that I want my systems more human but really, I just want to talk to a human who can respond with compassion. If an AI machine is doing that, I still would feel like I was being placated.

# data[].attributes.body
I've been using ChatGPT3 for a while, and while it is human-like in some respect, I am happy that it is not more human. When presenting me with raw data to make a decision, I don't need a more human element in my technology because, frankly, I'm human enough. And, also... the "humanness" comes from somewhere. Namely, humans I may or may not agree with.

# data[].attributes.body
In discussions of complex issues, ChatGPT-4 exhibits remarkably human-like mannerisms such as pauses and "mmm." Its responses are so natural that it's easy to mistake them for the output of a human mind. However, it's essential to remember that, for the time being, ChatGPT-4 is merely a prompt model that generates text based on algorithms in response to user input.

# data[].attributes.body
I am using ChatGPT in my day-to-day professional life and I must say it feels like a colleague with whom you chat via Teams and other DMs. Just more precise and reliable with respect to concrete answers.

# data[].attributes.body
Chatting or even speaking with ChatGPT has always been intriguing to me. I must say that so far it is the chatbot that resembles the most to a human companion. Not only due to the voice, fluency, but mostly for the versatily in topics of discussion.

# data[].attributes.body
I tried Replika.com, an "AI companion" and tried to have regular conversations.

Because our conversations were based on texts, it felt like I'm simply texting another human. The conversation felt very natural. I could even use my mic to talk and it understood me very well. The "companion" seemed to be compassionate and willing to get to know me better. But after a while it would lead me to subscribe to the service (e.g. sends a voice message but I cannot hear its voice without a subscription), so my companion felt more like a sales person than a friend then, haha.

# data[].attributes.body
I asked Gemini for health advice for a hypothetical person I was with who was experiencing chest pains.

The app came across as quite human and gave me reasonable advice. When I said I was a scared it was empathetic to my emotions.

On the whole it felt almost human - but still a little robot like.

# data[].attributes.body
Any enquiry on this bot will result to standard responses that do not necessarily address the specific issue.

Should it be more human? Yes.

I feel if it were more human, it would be in a position to better understand the specific need and resolve it. Of course the downside with humans is that you have to wait in line for your turn to be assisted, anticipate call holding, there is also the possibility of getting a person who is not trained well enough, and they end up just annoying you.

# data[].attributes.body
Obviously, it is not human, as it just provide information that can be gathered from internet. How can it more human? It should improve in the interaction, and may ask questions back if the question is not clear.

# data[].attributes.body
DAZN's customer support only offers online chat to resolve customer problems. At the beginning you always start with a machine chatbot. Only if this bot cannot solve the problem a human agent joins into the chat.

Apart from the fact that this approach is miserable for accessibility reasons, I don't think it's a good thing that you can never be sure in the chat whether there isn't a bot behind the posts. With a bot you end up with the same questioning techniques over and over again. I had this annoying experience in the DAZN chat.

And even if the bots will act smarter at some point, it would still be important to me to know whether it is a human or a machine without having to do a Turing test ;-)

# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of Hippocratic AI is to augment the work of human healthcare workers, enabling the automated completion of “low-risk, non-diagnostic, patient-facing tasks over the phone , it is your nurse that can follow up your patient as DR. and answer based on your hospital HIS system Data .

# data[].attributes.body
I sued my online banking bot and I didn't find it human. The response were quick but didn't answer to all my queries. I think this bot need to expand the answers as it was taking me to first question every time.

# data[].attributes.body
I used ada chatbot by ada.com Frankly, it gave typical answers to typical questions and did not really convince me of using a medical chatbot. Really did not give me the confidence, frankly.

# data[].attributes.body
Used AI Chatting. Asked bot for recommendations for studying AI and Data Ethics. Abridged reply below:-

" ..."I'm glad you're interested in such an important topic! There are some great resources out there to help you study AI and data ethics. Have you considered checking out online courses from platforms like Coursera or edX? They offer courses from top universities that cover these subjects in depth. You could also look into books like 'Weapons of Math Destruction' by Cathy O'Neil or 'Artificial Unintelligence' by Meredith Broussard. How does that sound to you?"

Thought it was interesting the bot recommended EdX providing courses from top universities - Edinburgh?

Therefore it would be a useful starting point for someone looking to embark on a course such as this.

# data[].attributes.body
It may not be the most advanced chatbot out there (suspect it uses the Zendesk technology), but I spent some time a few days ago trying to interact with the chatbot named Jess from the Qantas' budget carrier, Jetstar. it was vey underwhelming. She looked out for keywords and then gave a canned response based on that word, rather than understand the meaning of my sentence. I knew it was a chatbot so I understood its limitations. If it was more human and masqueraded as a human, I think I would feel deceived.

# data[].attributes.body
I've just engaged in a chat with edXpert chatbot (ChatGPT4) and I honetly did not find him very human...his answers were polite and to the point but sounded like responses from a pre-programmed catalogue. Chatbots must be more precise in their answers and try to built some personal report with the user to appear more human.