Community

OK, aknowledge the argument here too.
If used properly with limited set of simple tasks agree that can be value creative. And hear the arguments that dehuminized is better for these simple versions.

Clear, hear your point. Makes sense.

As specifically concerned financial services: When people call their bank they do expect HAL, and if they don't get it, they freak out. Interaction with a bank where you have your money stored is not the same as interaction with internet provider when line has problems. 
So either bring HAL, or pay to well trained people if you don't have it.

OK,I hear your argumetns and read your article.

So humanised bots have more polarised reactions: if they work well they have good reactions. But if they screw up, negative response is also more intense. Makes sense. 

But the logic here is that technology is not advanced enough for bots to work well, and if they don't work well they should be dehumanized to smooth the anger of customers.

Well, when I constructed my argument I assumed that BBVA bot works well. And if it does not work well, it should not be used in financial services at all. Money management is very sensitive topic for people and and nothing annoys them more than non functioning help from their bank. So putting not well working bot in a bank is a mistake. especially in post-MVP phase when the product is live with non beta tested users.

Now assuming bots work well, years in retail banking demonstrated that clients respond to women bank operators way better, and trust them more (for exmaple they do no recount money when given by female cash operator, while male operators have queues as customers recount money all the time).

So given the bot performs well, better product design would be to make it female, and if it does not work well it should be back to developers and data sicentists team.