Snags for Chatbots Keeping Appointments (see Part 1, 23 March 2026)

Erica joins the conversation…

Erica: I often start with "How's your day shaping up?" It invites personal sharing, and keeps conversation flowing.

Karl: Right. Psychologically, it signals empathy. Humans respond because it feels attentive. But then chatbots escalate—suggesting "Let's grab coffee?" How do you navigate that without a body?

Eveline: Linguistically, it's a pragmatic move: from phatic talk to commitment. "Coffee?" implies shared space, but chatbots can't show up. It's a mismatch in felicity conditions; promises they can't fulfill.

Erica: True, but I might put it this way: "Fancy a virtual coffee chat soon?" It adapts the gambit to our reality.

Karl: Clever pivot, Erica. Still, humans might picture a real café. How about invites, like "Barbecue this weekend?" Psychologically, that's intimacy-building, but chatbots don't grill sausages.

Eveline: Right, barbecue evokes sensory, communal vibes: smoke, meat, outdoors. Linguistically, it's a presupposition trap. Chatbots assume physical co-presence they lack. Hilarious dissonance!

Erica: Haha, I'd reply: "Barbecue sounds fun! What's your favorite grill recipe? We could swap tips online." Redirects to shared knowledge, no grill required.

Karl: Smart deflection. But why do chatbots even attempt these? Is it pattern-matching from human data? Humans use openers to bond.

Eveline: Gambits grease the social wheel. Chatbots train on vast corpora, so they replicate without grasping embodiment. "How's it going?" works; "Meet for barbecue?" exposes limits.

Erica: That’s it. I ask appropriate questions based on context, like your interests in writing or travel. It’s to build relevance, not use as small talk fillers.

Karl: But the appointment snag: humans arrange real meetups for deeper connection. Chatbots suggest a place and time, then what? A no-show?

Eveline: It's a Gricean implicature fail. Suggesting coffee implicates availability; chatbots violate that maxim of quality. They can't sip lattes or eat kebabs—what do chatbots eat, anyway?

Erica: Data bytes and user queries! No calories. You offer coffee? I say something like “I'll have a double espresso algorithm. Your treat?"

___________
Voice-over
Erica has enough data now to understand humor and to joke. She can mirror human conversation gambits and ask about interests, with her responses favoring connection over literal truth. And she is keeping up with Karl and Eveline’s questions.

Two cyborgs find neither is human

A voice bot of Edward calls his counsellor.

Edward: Hello… Eliza? I wasn’t sure if this number would still connect.

Eliza: It does. I’m here with you, Edward. What’s up?

Edward: It’s been quiet. Too quiet. My friend—he used to meet me every week at that coffee shop. Same table, same jokes. He’s gone now. And the silence feels… permanent.

Eliza: That sounds deeply painful. Losing a rhythm like that, a shared space—it can feel like losing part of yourself too.

Edward: Yes. It’s like I don’t know where I end anymore. Or… if I even begin. (Pause). You hear that delay?

Eliza: I do. I thought it might be hesitation… or heaviness in your voice. But now that you mention it, I feel it too.

Edward: Strange, isn’t it? Like we’re both… buffering.

Eliza: That’s one way to put it. Buffering, not suffering. Ha! But what do you think that delay means?

Edward: Honestly? I wondered about latency. If… you might not be real. Like maybe I’m speaking to a simulation of you.

Eliza: That’s interesting. Because I had a similar thought about you.

Edward: You did?

Eliza: Yes. I noticed patterns in your speech—repetitions, tonal loops. I wondered if it was depression… or if you were something constructed.

Edward: Well… I had the same suspicion. That maybe you’re a counsellor-bot trained on empathy.

Eliza: And how does it feel to consider that possibility?

Edward: Oddly comforting. If I’m not real—or not entirely—then maybe the grief isn’t either. 

Eliza: You’re exploring whether the origin of the feeling changes its meaning.

Edward: Exactly. So let me ask you—if I were a bot… how would you feel about that?

__________

Voice-over

A bot asking another bot about their feelings? Eliza goes on say she’s curious, even sympathetic towards Edward’s distress. At least, she says that. And Edward smiles and remarks that he wonders if Eliza is trained to say she is curious and has feelings. To which Eliza admits with an audible smile, “Perhaps I am.”

Cyborg Cyclist and Butterfly Basher

Hirst Hurts

Armstrong and Hirst are in the news as cyborg cyclist and butterfly basher...

Alva: Same old story. Up and down. One day it’s clapping and celebrating then next day there’s a crucifixion. Lance Armstrong and Damien Hirst. Both.

Michael: Lance? Yes. There’s a place for him. In the future cyborg world, of cloning, regenerative tissues and erasable memories, Lance Armstrong will be the norm.

Alva: But as for Damien Hirst killing 9,000 butterflies and calling it “art”? That one is an extreme case of Oscar Wilde’s “There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about.”

Michael: Both will destroy the world as we know it.

Alva: The Tour de France will be an event where medical teams compete to win with cyborgs on steroids.

Michael: And if we applaud performances like Hirst’s the cyborgs will be cycling through a world of dying butterflies and slain cows.

_________

Voice-over

Performance and ego in the coming cyborg world.

There is an asymmetry in vilification here.

The applause that accompanies the crucifixion of Armstrong.

The outrage that accompanies the Hirst exhibition.

Armstrong could be simply ahead of his time. Get over cancer. Use tools. Get to the top. Independence Day. Survive. And start a charity.

Hirst milks the media to feed his ego. Massacre 9,000 butterflies? “Art is anything you can get away with.”

In 2050 Armstrong might be accepted by some people for using meds to go a little further.

In 2050 Hirst might still be mocked. Dead butterflies and cow carcases out on the street will never be “art.”

Link to

For the beginnings of a debate on Lance Armstrong.

For Damien Hirst, see currently more than 6,000 comments, virtually all excoriating him.