
Facebook’s Virtual Assistant M Is Dead - mpweiher
https://www.wired.com/story/facebooks-virtual-assistant-m-is-dead-so-are-chatbots/
======
tootie
Chatbots be they voice or text face the same user interface problems that old
school command-line interfaces did 20 years ago before windowing GUIs came
about. When you start up, you're faced with a void. it's extremely difficult
to convey to users what the acceptable entry points are and how to phrase them
to get what you want. The inputs are far more generous than classic command-
line world, but it's still vague enough to induce paralysis in end users. If I
have a bunch of pull-down menus with clear directives on what I can and can't
do, I'm going to be productive much more quickly.

~~~
Ajedi32
I think the ultimate goal is to make the "acceptable entry points" so numerous
and the variety of acceptable wordings so broad that you can approach the
assistant with pretty much any goal you have in mind and it'll walk you
through how to accomplish that.

Imagine if this was a realistic conversation with an assistant:

> "Hey Google, I'd like to order a pizza."

> "Sure, what kind?"

> "Let's see... cheese, pepperoni, sausage... and maybe some green pepers?"

> "Alright. What size?"

> "Hmm, so I need to feed 4 people..."

> "Sounds like a large?"

> "Sure, let's go with a large."

> "Alright. There's a Dominos nearby, I can order that for $8.99."

> "Sounds good."

> "Alright, I've ordered your pizza. Expected delivery in 15 minutes."

No need for the human to understand what the "entry point" is, because you can
approach the assistant with pretty much _any_ entry point and it'll give you a
useful response. We're still not there yet, unfortunately, and I think it'll
be quite a while before we are.

~~~
8ytecoder
Well, on the other hand in a GUI - in pretty much a single page - I can see
all options I have, all sizes, their exact price ...etc. With CMD and chatbots
there's always the FOMO. "What if there are other options I haven't
considered?". Humans like to be in control.

~~~
mrisoli
Exactly, I prefer using a GUI over calling over the phone for delivery because
I might have communication or listening issues with the person on the other
side of the phone.

The same thing happens for McDonald's and other places replacing cashiers with
touch-screen terminals, not only I am sure of how the system understood me, I
can easily navigate the several options without annoying an employee with
dozens of questions, going from that to conversational UI is a step back in
the wrong direction.

~~~
cecilpl2
I think most people find navigating conversation with another person much
easier than navigating a GUI or computer system of any kind.

~~~
Meekro
You might be right for people who have ordered a dominos pizza many times and
already know exactly what they want. Rattling off your requests to a person
might be faster and less stressful than navigating a UI.

But what if you don't know what your options are and how much they cost? You
have to ask the person to list off the possible pizza styles, sizes, toppings,
and the prices for each one. Then they have to tell you about all the
available side dishes and desserts (with prices, again) and how there's a
half-off deal if you get THIS side with THAT pizza on a Tuesday, and on and on
and on. It'd probably take a good 20 minutes to convey all that over the phone
(I hope you have a good memory or are taking notes), and by the time they're
done, the poor employee is probably so frustrated that they're ready to
strangle you.

Or, I can suck up all that information at a glance on dominos.com, and I won't
have to repeat my credit card number over the phone 5 times before they get it
right.

~~~
Spooky23
An innovation was made in that space — a menu.

Restaurant websites always, without exception, suck. Dominos, while the pizza
is garbage, has a wonderful ordering website. But even then the actual menu is
awful.

They are always a sales funnel first, menu second. They cannot give accurate
ETA, ever. It’s harder to display multiple choices well on a screen vs a sheet
of paper.

Unless you are a place with 5 menu items, the paper menu is superior in almost
every scenario.

------
jedberg
Wow, I knew it was a limited beta, but I didn't know it was _that_ limited. As
one of the lucky few that had it, I now feel both special and sad that it's
gone.

But not that sad -- I didn't use it once after a few easy questions the first
day I got access. It would occasionally pop up some suggestions as I was
typing messages, but I would always ignore them as they were irrelevant.

I think the biggest issue is that they weren't up front about it. They tried
to make it seem like it was an AI doing all the work.

I think if they had straight up said, "this is a human and we're training an
AI", it would have been a lot better. It would have allowed them to do things
to get stronger feedback, like asking, "was this the right suggestion?" Then
when I got irrelevant suggestions, I could give them feedback as to what was
wrong and why. But it never asked me for that so I never gave any feedback.

I thought I was just one of millions training the AI and that they would get
plenty of signal with all those users. I had no idea it was so limited -- I
definitely would have been much more active in giving feedback had I known.

~~~
dwwoelfel
It sounds like you're talking about M suggestions, which are still going
strong and have AI doing all of the work. The article is talking about a
different aspect of M, the text-based virtual assistant, which you could ask
anything and was backed by humans.

The verge did a better job of explaining what was actually going away:
[https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/8/16856654/facebook-m-
shutdo...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/8/16856654/facebook-m-shutdown-
bots-ai)

~~~
jedberg
Ah, I didn't realize those were separate. I actually have both.

But in that case, most of what I said still applies!

------
ericrav
M is dead because it failed to be automated, but the headline extends that to
all chatbots. some of the hype around chatbots was their potential for a
uniform user interface and less need to download new apps. has there been any
evidence that chat as an interface has failed?

~~~
danso
I've always been bearish about the appeal of chatbots but I did see how they
could seem to be a useful interface for many users, especially on support-type
sites. They basically seemed to function as a friendlier-version of site
search. Yes, ultimately they are an unnecessary middleman facade -- in the
same that writing a Google search as a formal question -- e.g. "Where are the
best pizza places near me?" \-- is unnecessary when you could simply query
"best pizza"

But perhaps the _perception_ that your question was being interpreted in an
intelligent human way caused users to think differently and rephrase their
questions in a way that made it easier to find the most relevant help/support
links? I remember how interesting Ask Jeeves seemed to be -- though to be
fair, Google wasn't much of a presence in 1997.

~~~
EGreg
The killer app for chatbots is voice.

That's about it.

~~~
ryanianian
If they get good enough, I can totally imagine them being keyboard-driven too.
I'd love to be able to just type a quick "email" saying "order paper towels"
when I'm at work and not have to shout into my phone in a quiet office.

(To be sure, the tech for a lot of this already exists they're just not
exposing a text-based version.)

I wouldn't want to be quite as verbose for a text-based version, but
oftentimes it really is easier to type _more_ versus _less_ if you're
confident the recipient will read and parse the intent of the whole phrase.

------
jkestelyn
Leaving the clickbait-y headline aside, this story is really problematic
because it conflates technology with an application of that technology.

1\. When reasonably scoped (i.e., to a specific use case) and iteratively
optimized over time, chatbots can meet user expectations quite well.

2\. If ostensibly intended by their builders to handle every type of request
on the fly via ML pixie dust, chatbots can be miserable failures.

Both things can be equally true.

(Disclaimer: I work for Chatbase, a service for analyzing and optimizing bots.
Maybe Facebook should have looked at that. :) )

~~~
danso
I think the article overreaches in conflating the problems with chatbots --
which typically don't do the kind of things M promised -- with the cost/scope
overrun of M. But I think it's too simplistic to say that Facebook should have
just optimized their chatbots. The Facebook service has a much broader and
diverse userbase and functionality -- think of the criticism that FB gets for
seemingly taking over every aspect of our lives (everything from messaging
friends, photo management, video broadcasting, news publishing, gaming,
financial transactions).

What purpose would an optimized, limited-scope chatbot for Facebook even look
like? Though come to think of it, I can think of a few usecases if Facebook
wasn't out to dominate everything about real life. For example:

\- When traveling to a new city: "Do I know anyone who lives here or is
currently visiting?"

\- When wanting to read about or discuss news topics, but only from my current
network: "Are any of my friends talking about the election?"

\- When bored: "What games are my friends playing?" (I'm thinking back to the
time when FB was a games platform for things like Words with Friends)

All of these may be findable through a combination of searches, but I'm not a
power user, and I bet most people aren't. I think if I go to the "New York,
NY" location page, there's a section that lists friend connections, but a bot
that processed a natural language query would be so much smoother.

And what about queries like: "What are my friends doing this weekend?".
Searching that exact question brings up nothing of relevance. When I do a
search for "weekend", the top results are for things like "Vampire Weekend". I
have to scroll down to find a section for "Posts from Friends", and that only
contains posts (even from months ago) that contain the literal word,
"weekend".

I don't really know how to improve those results, without hurting some other
kind of expected functionality. But a chatbot that purports to deal with
everyday human questions might be the right interface for everyday quality-of-
life questions

~~~
jkestelyn
I don't disagree; my suggestion was tongue-in-cheek. There is no value in
optimizing an application that is so flawed that it shouldn't exist to begin
with.

Those flaws derive from a wildly optimistic use case for the technology,
though. A much cleaner use case would have been a bot intended for Facebook
Help (instead of, or to complement, a KB -- assuming people still need that).

More ambitious maybe, but perhaps not impossible, would be a bot that looks
for signs of suicidal tendencies in posts or comments and engages the user in
therapeutic conversation. (?)

------
bogomipz
From the opening paragraph:

>"Messaging app Kik staked its company’s future on bots and “chatvertising.”

then:

>"Kik pivoted to blockchain technology."

Is there actually any logical pivot from chatbots to blockchain? I am
wondering what of your core tech in the former could allow you to pivot to the
latter. Or is this simply grasping at funding?

~~~
nothis
It's like an episode of HBO's "Silicon Valley". I honestly laughed out loud
when I read "Kik pivoted to blockchain technology".

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
The genius of the Silicon Valley show is making what is essentially almost a
documentary sound like parody.

------
boto3
The gap between the levels of abstraction that humans and machines operate is
much bigger than the most AI researchers think. No amount of computation for
various kinds of gradients can compensate for that. The next AI breakthrough
will be a radical development in knowledge modeling and representation.

~~~
mantas
Either humans will drop various language variations to accommodate AI or it
will take a looooooong time.

~~~
ryanianian
Probably some convergence between the two. You're probably used to changing
some syntax around to get Siri/Alexa/* to understand you. That puts some
mental tax on you, but you get used to it. Devices will seek to lower that
mental tax, but ultimately you'll probably get used to it enough that the tax
will feel free and devices won't need to evolve the syntax much past a certain
point.

What seems missing in a lot of these threads is the idea of "context", and I
think that's where there's lots of room for innovation. Current voice-
assistants work "okay" for single-sentence queries, but if the device doesn't
understand (or if I fail to phrase things in a way that it's expecting), it
doesn't ask clarifying questions, and it doesn't use past exchanges to inform
future ones (beyond perhaps some voice training data). It also limits the
kinds of things it can do by requiring that all of the necessary information
be presented in one utterance. It also raises the "mental tax" on doing "real
things" because I know I have to say a long phrase _just right_ or start over,
and that's sure to raise anyone's anxiety-levels...

~~~
mantas
> Current voice-assistants work "okay" for single-sentence queries

They might work "okay" if you're native speaker. As ESL speaker with an
accent, it's nowhere near close. It's a total PITA beyond "what time is it".

~~~
dx034
Not only native speaker, you also can't speak with an accent. Most speech
recognition currently only works with a very "clean" language free of regional
expressions or accents.

------
lkrubner
This is a very odd quote:

" _It was easy for M’s leaders to win internal support and resources for the
project in 2015, when chatbots felt novel and full of possibility._ "

Chatbots were new in 2015? I think it might be more accurate to say they were
new in the early 1990s, but they had a revival of interest around 2015, driven
by the possibility that advances in AI and NLP would allow them to do more.

One place where chatbots still have a large opportunity in front of them is in
automobiles. The driver is not suppose to hold their cell phone while driving.
But they can talk to the phone, and voice-to-text allows them to interact with
chatbots. Someone in the industry told me that Toyota has inked a deal with
Pandorabots:

[https://www.pandorabots.com/](https://www.pandorabots.com/)

Likewise, during and after my time at Celelot [1], I talked to a lot of
salespeople, and they told me that was the #1 thing they'd like to see, as an
interface for SalesForce. They wanted to be able to meet a client, make a
sale, and then drive home, and while they were driving, they could talk to
their cell phone and the Celelot service would put all the data into
SalesForce for them.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Destroy-Tech-Startup-Easy-
Steps/dp/09...](https://www.amazon.com/Destroy-Tech-Startup-Easy-
Steps/dp/0998997617/)

------
odammit
I have a question for AI/NLP experts (and I might use the wrong terms).

When our voices are processed in systems like these are the results compared
to a corpus of our own speech, a local (geo) population, or language speakers
as a whole?

I’ve been curious how slang and people with poor grammar affect results of
other users. Will we start seeing “thicc” instead of “thick” and “dat” instead
of “that” over time?

One of the reasons I’ve been pondering this (anecdote alert) is that I
frequently see iOS dictation spelling bizarrely.

~~~
Zalastax
The dictionary in keyboard apps is often crowd sourced, especially sentence
predictions. Your own common phrases are made more significant as well. I
would assume speech to text systems would do the same. Coherent sentences is
very important for the recognition algorithms, and you can often see word
corrections happening live as you complete your sentence.

~~~
odammit
That’s interesting. I mean it drives me nuts sometimes but it’s also the
natural progression of spoken language right?

------
bduerst
So FB M was an assistant service built on a mechanical-turk-like labor supply,
which was aimed at automating itself as time went on?

~~~
ahartmetz
Which is exactly how much of today's "AI" in "AI" startups works, as I've
heard from a knowledgeable person. "We're doing AI and initially handing over
some parts to cheap human labor" sounds much more growthy than "we mainly
resell cheap human labor".

------
waytogo
Obivious sign that chatsbots are dead (which was also stated in the article's
original title): FB's Messenger doesn't show featured chatbots on the home tab
anymore.

------
zoom6628
Voice chatbots are a great way to convert your multi-tasking capable pc/phone
into a single-tasking one.

The benefit for text chatbots is you can concurrently interact with multiple
bots. So one can be talking to a customer over the phone and use multiple
chatbots to find shipping, products, place reservations on stock, verify a
credit card and so on.

IMO chatbots are still hugely valuable in Enterprise app space, but also any
traditiona multi-tasking environment like customer support, telesales, and
environments where is too complex to get a bot to handle everything ....
sometimes is better just to let the human brain be (literally) the 'meat in
the sandwich' to glue all the chatbot feeds together and create the outcome
required. Production line planning is potential example - ask bots to tell you
about current environment, stock levels, backlog, shift resources, cashflow,
and then human decides which work gets done today. Most good planners i have
met can do the planning vastly better, and quicker, than powerful systems with
optimisation algorithms and Tb of data.

------
ahartmetz
Heh. "M" marks the murderer in this film I'd consider part of the Western
canon. The cultural insensitivity!
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_(1931_film)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_\(1931_film\))

------
djhworld
I remember this article in Wired [https://www.wired.com/2015/08/how-facebook-
m-works/](https://www.wired.com/2015/08/how-facebook-m-works/), interesting to
see that come full circle

------
otp124
Sounds like despite their best efforts, NLP + full automation still has a long
way to go. Unless they didn't get the resources they need to push it over the
edge?

> That’s because most of the tasks fulfilled by M required people.

> One source familiar with the program estimates M never surpassed 30 percent
> automation. Last spring, M’s leaders admitted the problems they were trying
> to solve were more difficult than they’d initially realized.

> But as it became clear that M would always require a sizable workforce of
> expensive humans, the idea of expanding the service to a broader audience
> became less viable.

~~~
bronco21016
The scope was just way too large. Think about it. You could ask M for
anything. How many services do you use or pull data from on a day to day
basis? Now how many of them have an API?

Until nearly everything has a publicly accessible API I don’t see how
something like M could ever happen without extensive human interaction. I’ve
been giving this a lot of thought lately. I pull information from a few
intranet sites routinely for managing travel for my job. It’s almost
exclusively online and because of the scattered sites it can be annoying to
manage at times. It’s perfect for automation and an AI assistant but without
any kind of programmable interface how would an AI assistant ever work with
the sites?

I think Alexa and Google Assistant ultimately have the right idea, privacy
issues aside. Start with a small enough scope and attract so many users that
eventually services are compelled to support the devices. Over time the scope
covers almost everything.

~~~
ertand
I agree with this. It's a matter of scope and therefore a product problem.
What can be done using NLP today is not a secret and I'm sure Facebook was
already aware of the shortcomings. They could have reduced to scope to a more
tractable problem, but they chose to cover everything that a consumer might
want.

I think there are a lot of good use cases that can be automated today.

------
Spooky23
Chatbots are an amazing technology that is very compelling for people who do
not need to interact with them.

------
RepressedEmu
I think its interesting that they killed it because it was a "cost center" and
never even tried to monetize it. I wonder how much it would actually cost if
you measured the contractors to the minute and only charged for the tasks that
humans needed to perform?

~~~
zulln
There are a few services like that:

* [https://www.fin.com/](https://www.fin.com/) * [https://mysecond.com/](https://mysecond.com/) * [https://www.perssist.com/](https://www.perssist.com/) * [https://getmagic.com/](https://getmagic.com/)

I have only played around with Magic. Really like the idea of it but never got
any real use of it. They executed all tasks I threw at them so slowly which in
turn costed me too much money (asking them to warn me each morning if it is
going to rain.. well, that cost me 40 minutes the first day, then I canceled
that task).

Since then I got a credit card with concierge service, which I pay around 10
USD/month for. Solves all my easy tasks for a much better price.

~~~
RepressedEmu
I used Magic recently but I had never heard of the other three so thanks for
that info! I asked them to cancel a gym membership and it took them 70
minutes. Ugh. After that happened I am hesitant to ask them to do anything
else. What credit card are you using for concierge service and what kind of
tasks do you use it for? I assume theres limits to the kinds of tasks that
Magic could do but your concierge can't.

~~~
zulln
There are certainly tasks that a virtual assistant can handle and not a
concierge-service, but in my personal case those did not deserve the extra
cost.

I use the concierge service over email, and they usually take a few hours to
respond. Magic started to work on my tasks within a few minutes, often faster,
which already here changes what you can use it for. It is possible to call the
concierge over phone when you need it faster, but email has served my need.

Here is a few things I have used them for the last month or so:

* I traveled away two weeks recently, wanted to leave my car at a car service the day before and have them fix it and store it until I was back home. Had the concierge call around and book that for me. Booked change of winter tires this way as well.

* Wanted a get a haircut a certain time on a holiday day. Had them book that as I did not no anyone that was open.

* Called them 30 minutes ahead of a full-booked train and they managed to get my a ticket (still not sure how they did this).

* Tried to buy outsold tickets to a concerts, which they did not manage to do. Wrote back that they were sorry.

* Investigate the ability to book a meeting room within a 500 meters-area.

All this costed me around 10 USD/month, and no premium when you purchase
things. I have just started, possible I find a better use for it in the
future.

I live in Sweden and use
[https://www.supremecard.se](https://www.supremecard.se). Most credit cards
buy the same service from the same third party concierge service, so I just
got the cheapest credit card as the service is the same.

------
remir
The chatbot/AI race reminds me of AOL, CompuServe and France's Minitel back in
the days. They wanted to be THE network, but we all know what happened.

So Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, etc, are all trying to win the AI game,
but in the end, to truly have an AI that is flexible and can learn on its own,
we would need to go beyond APIs and create a way for machine to understand
things, concepts and ideas. This is a massive task that cannot be done by one
company alone. It is a new way of writing apps and services.

------
iamleppert
The reason why it died has nothing to do with the underlying AI-like
technology (which was awful to begin with). It's because chatting, talking
with someone takes more effort (mentally, physically, emotionally) than
selecting from a list. In terms of unit quantity, how many motions are
required?

------
tmikaeld
The article suggests that facebook is ending chat bots support, thats not the
case - Services like [https://jumper.ai/](https://jumper.ai/) are still alive,
its AI assisted chat bot with payments inside messenger.

------
4minute
You would think the largest social media company would be able to make a
chatbot and virtual assistant. I guess Facebook isn't really hiring the best
machine learning talent, as all of their AI projects suck.

------
acjohnson55
I wonder if they've already pre-written the 2020 version of this piece,
"Samsung's Virtual Assistant Bixby Is Dead", which will go on to call out the
hubris of the voice interface gold rush.

~~~
ribs
I use two voice interfaces at least a few times every day, and I think that’s
becoming common. Alexa is being built into devices all over. Voice interfaces
are obviously different from the subject of this piece.

~~~
paublyrne
Do you use them at home or out? I can see the usefulness of voice interfaces
in the home although I don't find the idea compelling. What I really don't see
is people using voice regularly outside the home. I don't see it happening at
all right now and we've had voice assistants for a number of years now.so it
seems unlikely that people will suddenly start liking the idea.

~~~
nl
I use Google Assistant in the car reasonably frequently.

------
krmmalik
I'm confused. Is FB ending support for Chatbots altogether? That wasn't clear
from the article -- well at least not for me.

------
krmboya
I don't know whether this qualifies as chatbots, but I simply like the
command-response interface of chat based services for selecting options
without an AI layer interpreting what I mean.

I usually I prefer the chat interface rather than a clunky browser UI where
companies and govt agencies provide it, and also that in some cases you can
add them to your address book like any other contact.

I guess I'm one of those computer technologists who haven't bought into the
whole _AI taking over the world_ hype.

~~~
SlySherZ
I've been thinking about this for a while, there are some cool things you
could do with command-based interfaces.

My take on it atm is to have a flexible (should work if you mistype a letter)
command-based interface which is both voice and text based, where you can
perform commands like:

play songs from coldplay

set alarm to friday at 3pm

make list with words a, b and c. Give me a random item from the list

There are some tricky parts though: \- Should it be context aware? Notice how
I, in the second part of the last command mentioned "the list". I think it
should, and maybe even ask "which list?" in case there is more than one.

\- How do you define commands in a way that makes it easy to add and compose
commands, and reduces or eliminates the ambiguity for the parser?

\- Is the kind of parsing you do in voice recognition similar enough to be
compatible with text parsing?

If someone know about some tool similar to this, please let me know.

EDIT: Fixed typo.

~~~
jgtrosh
$ Play all Coldplay songs that were the most popular of their album $ Play all
Coldplay songs about love $ Play the list of Coldplay songs for my 8 a.m.
alarm

Now, how would the UI go about specifying which previously defined list you
want to refer to? Sometimes you'll want to pick the most recent, sometimes the
one most closely matching the definition, sometimes the one matching the
"alarm clock" format most, sometimes you'll want to offer the user a choice
among all objects similar enough to the description (What about if the object
was built iteratively, do you offer intermediary objects as possible
choices?), sometimes you'll want to ask a short question to restrict possible
choices, if there's seems to be a clear criterion that probably improves
understanding fast enough more relative to the time it takes to ask (this can
depend on the user/environment/situation to choose between fast/precise
answer).

To me the difficulty is that the choice of strategy can be built on the fly
depending on context by humans, usually without building an understanding of
all possible strategies but instead by just magically guessing a strategies
which seems to fit well enough. This means being able to learn strategies
based on previous experiences and building an evolving understanding of
contexts.

Now this is probably not necessary to build a functioning interactor, but this
is a reasonable description of normal human interaction, and the capacity for
systems to adapt to contexts without much more outside help than humans do is
going to be a good way to rate them.

~~~
SlySherZ
Notice that your first and last example are somewhat simple to explain
conceptually, so they should also be simple to build by composing the right
building blocks:

"Play" gives away the fact you're looking for a song or list of songs, songs
which you'll hopefully have in an internal knowledge base.

"all Coldplay songs": just filter by Coldplay. If your library is big enough,
you could figure out that it refers to the artist.

"that": we need to filter again by the condition which follows.

Speeding up... "were the most popular of their album": take each song and
corresponding album, sort album by property "popularity" and check it's the
first one. You'll need to know "popular" refers to the property "popularity".

The third one is pretty similar. The second one could be easy too, but the
piece "about love" is complicated on it's own.

IMO this means three things: firstly, words don't map directly to commands /
capabilities, which means that having a composable way define capabilities is
hard. You'll likely need to define many ways to do each thing, but you could
add them one by one, over time. Secondly, the tool should be able to tell that
it doesn't know what you're talking about (what is this "about love" thing
about?!?). Lastly, it should be interactive, so that it can ask/tell you when
it doesn't know ("what list do you mean, A or B").

Your comment about context is on point. We can't expect the tool to understand
context it doesn't know about, which is why we cannot expect human level from
this. But it doesn't have to be human level, it just needs to be good enough
to be useful, and we do have a lot of space to improve.

We spend years learning this stuff, we could slowly teach a few tricks to the
computer ;)

------
b1gtuna
Is there any _usable_ AI assistant available? Please recommend!

------
m3kw9
The M assistant seemed like a 10 minute programming job to make dumb sticker
suggestions

~~~
borski
Despite having the same icon, that’s not the same M; it’s completely separate.

------
erfgh
Another failure for AI.

~~~
iliaznk
I wouldn't call a bunch of neural networks AI.

~~~
xaedes
Yea I agree. Because "AI" is out of our reach. If we can get hold on something
we give it another name (like neural networks) and move on. Continuing the
search for "AI".

------
cat199
Say hello to Clippy for me!

------
dboreham
Cap screwed back on the kool-aid bottle.

------
freqn
I first read this as "Facebook’s Virtual Assistant M Found Dead"

