FINAL REPORT - INFORMATION BASED CHATBOT 
 
 
In5480: Specialization in research in design of IT 
Autumn 2018 
 
 

 
 
 
Written by:   
Vilde Mølmen Høst - ​vildehos 
Marte Rimer -​ martrim 
Anna Sofie Schei - ​annassc 
 
 
   

1 
Table of content 
 
1 . Introduction 3 

2. Questions: Using a chatbot in a school context 3 

3. Background 4 

4. Design process and methods 5 

5. Prototype 6 
5.2 Persona 7 

6. Early testing and findings 7 

6.1 Testing the prototype 8 
6.2 Results from the first testing 8 
6.3 Re-design of the prototype 8 

7. Evaluating the chatbot 9 

8. Discussion and conclusion 11 

 
 

 
   

2 
1. Introduction 
Our names are Marte Rimer, Anna Sofie Schei and Vilde Høst, we are all first-year master 
students on Design, use and interaction. We know each other from the interaction design 
bachelor here at ‘Institute For Informatics’ hereby referred to as IFI. We all think AI as a field 
is very interesting and are looking forward to having a lot of professional discussions about 
the topic through our project work.   
 
1.2 Description 
In our project we explore how a chatbot can give information to students about 
school-related information. In the first iteration of the project we created a chatbot for giving 
students information about where to get coffee etc. at IFI. One of our hypothesis was that 
information given by chatbots would be useful for new students at IFI, giving them 
information about things that we consider to be important when you’re a first year students. 
In the second iteration we wanted to explore the use of chatbots through theory and used 
this in combination with testing to learn more about how a chatbot for this context should 
be. In the final iteration, iteration three, we improved and changed the chatbot based on the 
results from the last iteration and made a plan for evaluate the chatbot. The plan was then 
executed with five participants. In our conclusion we discuss the results from the evaluation 
in the light of our research question. 

2.  Questions: Using a chatbot in a school context 

We wanted to investigate users' trust in an AI ​system such as a chatbot. We therefore 
designed a research questions we wanted to look further into. 
 
“How will helpfulness affect trust in chatbot technology for students at IFi when it comes to 
school-related information?” 
 
A chatbot needs a purpose, and if we consider that if this purpose is to be helpful, it also 
needs to gain trust from the users. There is no need to ask a chatbot for help if you don’t 
trust the information it gives you. With this in mind we consider the first question to be a bit 
too ambiguous and large for us to investigate in this course. We have therefore used this 
question as a guideline for what we can actually manage to explore in this course and what 
we can find on the existing literature in this field. Trust is an important factor for reliance on 
and implementation of technology (Lee & See, 2004). In relationships trust means being 
reliable, having confidence in the other person both physically and emotionally (Lewicki & 
Bunker, 1995). So one can say that trust will also play a role in the interplay between human 
and machine. The problem with systems taking control is that it’s often hard for people to 
rely upon it appropriately. Because people respond to technology socially, trust influences 
dependence in it. So trust will inevitably guide reliance when we are faced with complex 
and unanticipated situations. When  we use systems to navigate and make decisions about 

3 
our health, finances, relationships, and future — they must be trustworthy. In 
human-technology interaction trust is an example of the important influence of affect and 
emotions. Emotional feedback in technology is not only important for acceptance, but can 
also make a fundamental improvement regarding safety and performance (Lee & See, 
2004). 
 
To make the project more feasible we wanted to explore the following questions: 
 
1. How useful is information given by a chatbot compared to a human counsellor? 
2. Does students find information given by a chatbot trustworthy?  
 
By exploring these questions we hoped to get indicators on how students experience 
interacting with a chatbot contra interacting with a human, and address if the students 
prefer one communication format over the other. This was done via selected methods in the 
design process, see chapter 4. Due to time constraints we later in the project had to focus 
our efforts more on the second question.  

3. Background 
Chatbots has emerged as a hot topic in the latest years, and it is used by numerous 
companies in various areas - help desk tools, automatic telephone answering systems, 
e-commerce and so on. Even though the technology has been around since the 60’s (Atwell 
& Shawar, 2007). Why are we suddenly so interested in this technology now? This can likely 
be explained by the recent year's advancements in messaging applications and AI 
technology (Brandtzaeg & Følstad, 2017).  
 
In the article ​Chatbots: Are they really useful? ​Atwell and Shawar provide real-life examples 
of different chatbots in different contexts. One of the examples is Sophia, a robot that was 
developed to assist in mathematics at Harvard by answering students questions. This 
turned out to be applicable in many other contexts. Living in Norway you have probably 
noticed “Kommune Kari”. A chatbot that many of the municipality have available on their 
web-pages. Kari is there to answer “easy” questions like “when will the garbage truck 
come?” and “where can I find available jobs?”. Kari’s goal and the job is to provide 
information so that you as a user don’t have to navigate the “massive information flow” 
(Schibevaag, 2017). This way of using a chatbot is a part of the Question Answering (QA) field 
which is a combination between AI and information retrieval (Molla & Vicedo, 2007). QA can 
be defined as: 
 
“... the task whereby an automated machine (such as a computer) answers arbitrary questions 
formulated in natural language. QA systems are especially useful in situations in which a user 
needs to know a very specific piece of information and does not have the time—or just does not 
want—to read all the available documentation related to the search topic in order to solve the 
problem at hand”. ​(Molla & Vicedo, 2007). 

4 
 
Sophia and Kari are examples of chatbots that operate in “very specific” domains. This 
means that if you were to ask Kari about math and Sophia about when the garbage truck 
comes none of them would know the answer - because the question is outside of their 
domain. Chatbots have what is called a natural language user interface and therefore 
communicate with users via natural language ㅡ how a human would talk on a regular basis 
(Brandtzaeg & Følstad, 2017). Therefore they use what is called natural language processing 
(NLP) where the chatbot uses computational techniques to analyze text, where the goal is 
to produce a human-like answer based on a linguistic analysis (Hirschberg & Manning, 2015). 
 
For a chatbot to be especially useful to a certain domain some criteria have to be met. 
Minock (2005) proposes the following criteria for a domain to be successful in answering 
domain-specific questions: a domain should be circumscribed, complex and practical. This 
is summarized in the table below.  
 
Criteria  Description 

Circumscribed  Clearly defined knowledge sources and 

comprehensive resources available (a 
database etc.)  

Complex  If you could develop a simple FAQ then it 

would not be useful with a QA system. 
There has to be some level of complexity in 
the domain while still being able to meet 
the circumscribed criteria.  

Practical  Should be of use to a large group of people 

in the domain and take into account: how 
the users will formulate questions, what is 
commonly asked and how detailed the 
answers should be. 
 
When designing an intelligent system that provides decision support one must consider the 
human as something outside the system, but also as an integrated system component that 
in the end, will ultimately determine the success or the failure of the system itself 
(Cumming, 2004).  

4. Design process and methods 

For the project, we wanted to have a simplified user-centred approach (hereby referred to 
as UCD). UCD is an iterative design process in which designers focus on the users and their 
needs in each phase of the design process (Interaction design foundation, unknown). UCD 

5 
calls for involving users throughout the design process via a variety of research and design 
techniques so as to create highly usable and accessible products for them. The reason why 
we wanted to have a UCD design approach is to use the chatbot to explore how the users 
can, wish and needs to use the chatbot to achieve their goals.  
 
Our goal was to facilitate user involvement through interviews and to learn about their 
context. The interviews was small where we tried to understand people’s opinion about the 
subject. They were not only a conversation between the us and the participant but we also 
asked participants to execute some tasks interacting with a chatbot. Afterwards we asked 
them questions about the experience.  

5. Prototype 
 
We made a chatbot that we used as a prototype to 
investigate the research questions. The chatbot 
was originally made for appendix 1. But we wanted 
to further use this in our project. During the design 
process we improved and tested the prototype. 
We tried to make it as helpful as we could manage 
within the time frames of the project by iterating 
multiple times.  
 
 
 
 
Fig 1: first draft of our prototype 
 
5.1 How the chatbot meets Minock’s three criteria:  
Circumscribed ​- the information given to first year students are usually dispersed on 
differents sites and information channels. The information are usually given in a way where 
the students have to perform workarounds to retrieve the information. A lot of information is 
not written and usually learned and retrieved from other older students. This somewhat 
contradicts the goal of the system being fully circumscribed. Most of the information is 
found at the UiO webpage which we see as a “circumscribed source “ but we also want to 
include the more verbal information. 
 
Complex - ​the UiO webpage has many versions of FAQ´s but is in our experience 
sometimes to general. Because of the dispersed information and the different types of 
information a fully function chatbot in a school context should have, this could not be 
realised by a simple FAQ. Making a chatbot that is more advanced than a FAQ is not feasible 
in our project. But is rather a reason for using a chatbot in a school context, such as IFI. 
 

6 
Practical -​​ Our chatbot is designed to meet the needs of a large group of students at IFI. 
We believe that it is practical in the sense that it detects short questions like: “I am hungry” 
and “Food” or “Where is Epsilon?” and “I can’t find my classroom”. Which in turn can reduce 
the time it takes for the students to locate this information. This can also be used as a way to 
gather data on the information that students are interested in.  

5.2 Persona 
In the making of the prototype we also formed a persona for the chatbot to make the 
chatbot consistent in its language. This worked as a guideline in the design of the chatbot 
and was very helpful since it gave us a common understanding of the chatbots 
characteristics. We focused on building the chatbot as an engaging partner with a “happy 
tone” and a sense of humor, including GIFs to make the experience more fun and intriguing.  

6. Early testing and findings 

In the beginning of our project we wanted to test the first version of our chatbot (from 
appendix 1) on first year students. This was late in the fall and most of the first year students 
were familiar with a lot of the answers our chatbot could provide. We therefore developed a 
scenario to help the participants imagine the context of use (see figure 2). We wanted to test 
this early version of the prototype to get input on what the chatbot could and could not 
answer in the future. After the test was completed we had a short interview with the 
participants. The main purpose for this test was to see how the participants interacted with 
the prototype and find out if a chatbot could be suitable to find the information they 
needed. Before the testing we also carried out a pilot test to find immediate flaws in the 
plan. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fig 2: Scenario for use case 

7 
 
 
 
   

6.1 Results from the first testing 

The first participant enjoyed talking to the bot, but stressed the fact that 
you had to “talk like “a dummy” for it to understand what you were 
asking. The participant pointed out that this really would have come in 
handy in his first weeks at the university, as he didn’t always know who to 
ask - especially if he was in a hurry. He pointed out that the prototype 
needs to get more features like tell you exam dates, or “ifi life-hacks, like 
get your coffee before all of the students have their break”.  
 
The second participant was a bit frustrated that the chatbot wasn’t 
flexible enough (Fig.3). “I don’t like having to guess what questions to ask”. He would liked 
more instructions to know how to get more out of the chatbot.  
 
The third participant had also problems with understanding what the chatbot could do. 
When given a hint for what the chatbot could do, the chatbot did not function properly. 
Here we tried to restart the system and then the chatbot displayed it´s welcome message一
what it could do. Afterwards it was more clear what the participant could ask it, but the 
chatbot did not always give the response that the participant wanted. 

6.3 Re-design of the prototype 

This findings gave us a lot of insight in where the chatbot needed to be changed. E.g. adding 
a proper welcome message, defining the chatbots’ limitations and presenting this to the 
user. Luger & Sellen (2016) argues that it’s important to define goals and expectations so 
that your chatbot has a clear purpose. Knowing the capabilities and limitations of the 
system, before it crashes. The test showed that it was hard to ask the ‘right’ questions, we 
therefore added more ‘AI ques’ to simplify the interaction. We also used the principles for 
designing conversational agents. When talking about User-centred design of AI there are 
three (tentative) design principles: learning, improve and fuelled by large data sets (Følstad, 
2018). The principle of learning is how the system is designed for change. Setting the 
expectations right, with the system's ability to perform and its ever changing nature. The 
principle of improve is how the system should be designed with ambiguity. The system is 
more than likely to make mistakes, so learning from these are an important principle to 
improve the system. The principle fuelled by large data sets is how the system is reliant on 
getting access to enough data.  

8 
7. Evaluating the chatbot 
We wanted to evaluate the prototype in the right context, which for the IFI chatbot was at 
IFI. As mentioned before, most of the new students are more or less ‘integrated’ per now we 
could not test on “real potential users”. How ever we consider IFI-students as a good 
substitute since they have been in the situation before and a group that we easily can make 
contact with.  
 
We listed a set of questions and tasks, see figure 4, wich we asked the participants to 
answer and preform. We also included a few control questions to investigate the 
participants experience with the chatbot and to find out if they had any suggestions for 
further improvement. The evaluation ended with a short talk about the experience, where 
we were open for any kind of feedback the evaluators could provide.  
 
Due to time and capacity during this project we decided on including five participants acting 
as evaluators. The number of participants is also chosen on the basis that five participants 
can contribute to finding 80% of the usability flaws (Lazar et. al. 2017). The evaluation was 
formed as a formative usability test where the goal is to look at metrics that are more 
qualitative than quantitative (Lazar et. al. 2017). In the evaluation we wanted to combine 
small semi-structured interviews with the users executing tasks because this could give us 
more information about the experience beyond the metrics.    

9 
7. 1  The evaluation plan 
 
Set up  Candidates: 
Five randomly picked evaluators, the only criteria is that they hav 
to be students from IFI.  
 
Context: 
In the Institute for informatics building 
 

Warming up  - Have you talked with a chatbot before? If yes: What type of 
chatbot? 
- How do feel about getting information from a chatbot? Do you 
consider the information as more or less reliable? 

Task’s  Scenario: ​Imagine you are a new student. Use the chatbot and try to 
figure out when your next lecture starts, which room it is in and where 
is it located? Later you are feeling thirsty and are interested in a cup of 
coffee near the university. 
 
Tasks: 
Use the chatbot to find out: 
Where is the room named ‘Normarc’? 
Where can you buy coffee at ifi? 
 
Have a chat with the chatbot 

Control  - Did you feel like the chatbot gave you a good answer?  
questions   - Do you think that the answer from the chatbot was 
trustworthy? 
- Do you feel a need to ‘double check’ the answers you got from 
the chatbot? 
- If you were to rate this chatbot from 1-6 where six is the best, 
what would you rate it? 
- If low: What improvements does it need to get a six? 

 
Figure 4:​​ Evaluation plan 
 
 
 

10 
7. 2 The evaluation 
The evaluation was carried out with 5 participants at IFI, where each session took about 5 
minutes. After the first session we had to make some quick changes to the chatbot because 
it suddenly froze. We also discovered that it was casesensitive which we changed before 
the next session. In general the evaluation went good and we gained a lot of insight from 
the participants. Bellow we have summarized the main findings from the evaluation. 
 
7.3 Findings from the evaluation 
All of our participants reported that they had interacted with chatbots before, but had very 
little knowledge about how they worked. They found the chatbot to be nice to interact with 
and enjoyed that it had a friendly and casual tone. One of the participants said that she did 
not want a chatbot that felt too ‘human-like’, and that the prototype did not feel ‘human-like’ 
at all. This became clear when the same error message appears several times during the 
test.  
 
They found it hard to get the right answer but when they did they were very satisfied with 
the answers. ​“It was a good answer when I finally got the right one..”​.​ ​It was pointed out that 
the chatbot was not a smart chatbot, but that it provided the most necessary information 
sparing them from precious time spent on ‘Google’.  
 
They also reported that they trusted the answers they got, and they all pointed out that it 
was good that the chatbot provided a source along with the information it gave. The gifs 
and the pictures were also very popular among the participants, they said that this made the 
chatbot fun to interact with. One of the participants said that: “​It’s casual, and extra fun with 
GIF’s”​.   
 
One of the participants also stated: “​I liked that the chatbot was casual and cute. I don’t want 
a formal and boring chatbot, then I could have tried to find it on the university's web-pages.”​ It 
was also pointed out that it was preferably that the chatbot could provide diverse 
information, “​Usually, the information is so spread that you don’t know where to look​”. 

8. Discussion and conclusion 

When testing the last prototype we got findings suggesting that the participants did not 
have a problem with getting information from a chatbot instead of a human. The information 
that they got was not seen as less trustworthy, this could be supported by the fact that the 
chatbot provided a source for the information it gave. It has been interesting to investigate 
how the participants interacted with the chatbot and how they reported on it afterwards. 
Our findings have some indicators leading towards that a chatbot could be a good 
alternative for acting as a helpful friend for freshmans at a new school. Still we have to 
stress the fact that the chatbot was not very intelligent and that the evaluators had to adjust 
their language to match the chatbots.  
 

11 
Because of the scope of the project we did not have time to conduct as much user testing 
and re-design to the chatbot as we would have liked. This has an impact on the validity of 
our research. Through the project we have touched on some theory when making the 
chatbot, but this should also have a larger focus for higher validity. Even though the 
participants trusted the information given in this project we cannot say that people trusts a 
chatbot as much as they trust a human being. There are also biases in our project, one of 
them is that all the students that we included in the project already knew a lot of the answer 
the prototype could provide. Another bias is that the information the chatbot provides could 
be seen as “casual” and are not crucial and/or vital This could have had an impact on the 
results regarding trustworthiness.   
 
With that being said we also think that some of our findings could give some insights into 
how a very small group of people think about using a chatbot to gain information in a school 
context. Some of the characteristics of our chatbot was viewed as appropriate for the given 
context, like “casualness” and links to where the information was gathered. If the IFI chatbot 
is to be furthered developed, this could be something to draw upon.  
 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Cummings, M., 2004. Automation bias in intelligent time critical decision support systems, in: 
AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference. p. 6313 
 
Følstad, Asbjørn (2018), INTERACTION WITH AI – MODULE 2 - Session 1, UIO Retrieved 
from 
[Link]
[Link] 
 
Hung, V., Gonzalez, A., & DeMara, R. (2009, February). Towards a context-based dialog 
management layer for expert systems. In Information, Process, and Knowledge 
Management, 2009. eKNOW'09. International Conference on (pp. 60-65). IEEE. 
 
Jung, M., Hinds, P., 2018. Robots in the Wild: A Time for More Robust Theories of 
Human-Robot Interaction. ACM Trans. Hum.-Robot Interact. 7, 2:1–2:5. 
 
Lazar, J., Feng, J. H., & Hochheiser, H. (2017). ​Research methods in human-computer 
interaction​. Morgan Kaufmann. 
 
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human 
factors, 46(1), 50-80. 
 

12 
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 
5(1), 583-601. 
 
Lindblom J., Andreasson R. (2016) Current Challenges for UX Evaluation of Human-Robot 
Interaction. In: Schlick C., Trzcieliński S. (eds) Advances in Ergonomics of Manufacturing: 
Managing the Enterprise of the Future. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 
490. Springer, Cham 
 
Luger, E., & Sellen, A. (2016, May). Like having a really bad PA: the gulf between user 
expectation and experience of conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI 
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 5286-5297). ACM. 
 
Schank, R. C. (1987). What is AI, anyway?. AI Magazine, 8(4), 59. 
 
Winograd, T. (1991). Thinking machines: Can there be? Are we (Vol. 200). University of 
California Press, Berkeley. (p.204-210) 
 
Schibevaag, T.A. (2017, 27. September). - Hun vil revolusjonere Kommune-Norge. NRK. 
Hentet fra ​[Link]
 
Abu Shawar, B., & Atwell, E. (2007). Chatbots: Are they really useful? Journal for Language 
Technology and Computational Linguistics, 22(1), 29-49. Retrieved from 
[Link]
 
Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Følstad, A. (2017). Why people use chatbots. In I. Kompatsiaris, J. 
Cave, A. Satsiou, G. Carle, A. Passani, E. Kontopoulos, S. Diplaris, & D. McMillan 
(Eds.), Internet Science: 4th International Conference, INSCI 2017 (pp. 377-392). 
Cham: Springer (LIGGER UNDER RESSURSER) 
 
Molla, D. & Vicedo, J.L. (2006). Question Answering in Restricted Domains: An Overview. 
[Link]  
 
Minock, M. (2005): Where are the “‘Killer Applications’ of Restricted Domain Question 
Answering. 
[Link]
 
Hirschberg, J. & Manning, C, D. (2015). Advances in natural language processing. ​Science 349, 
261/266. 
 
Interaction design foundation (unknown). User centered design. 
[Link]
   

13 
Appendix 1: Report on conversational interaction assignment 
To make the chatbot we used the program ‘Chatfuel’, that allowed us to make a chatbot in 
Facebook’s messenger app. This was easy to use and we managed to actually make a 
chatbot within a day.  
 
In the making of the chatbot, we thought about how the chatbot could be useful and easy 
to interact with. The chatbot we ended up making was a chatbot that new students could 
use to get simple information such as where you can get coffee, where you can find the 
room you are looking for and where you can get food when you are at school.  
 
To make the interaction more enjoyable we tried to make the conversation playful and we 
also included some gifs to make it more fun. To make the chatbot easier to use we included 
a lot of trigger words so that you didn’t have to know the specific words to trigger the right 
answers. We also included a message that said “I’m sorry I’m not that smart yet, try google” 
with a link to google, for whenever the chatbot could not answer. While we built the chatbot 
we also tested it a lot, to make sure that it gave the answers it was supposed to do.  
 
Appendix 2: Report on machine learning assignment  
For this task, the purpose was a bit unclear. We could see that it changed when tweaking 
the values on Epoch. As one epoch consists of one full training cycle on the training set, we 
predicted that it would get smarter as we changed the number to 15. But the validity 
accuracy did not get higher than 0,03 and the conversation was still very abstract. Difficult 
to decipher which of the characters that were talking.  
 
Each of the layers is mathematical layers, given the input we get the output. In our chatbot, 
we only had two layers, but if you add more layers you will get more a more complex 
network which then could create more patterns. The drawback is that it would take much 
longer time.  
 
   

14 
Appendix 3: Report on problems with AI task  
To this assignment we used this video: 
[Link]
 

 
Fig X S
​ creenshot from ‘​ SMARTHUS | Det enkle er ofte det beste | REMA 1000’ v
​ ideo on youtube. 
 
Which is a constructed video made by ‘Rema 1000’. The video shows a man living in 
a smart house where he interacts with various technologies using his voice. The 
video starts smoothly, describing a simple life living in a smart home. The problems 
arise when he has to go to the dentist, where he gets anesthesia which makes it 
difficult for him to say certain words and letters. This complicates things in a smart 
house where everything is controlled by his voice.  
 
Even though the story portrayed is a fictitious one we consider it to be a possible 
scenario in real life. Especially with the voice recognition technology we have now.  
 
By proper testing this problem would probably have been detected early. The 
system should also have other interaction possibilities like text input when speech is 
not possible一like in the video. You could have a functionality when training the 
speech-recognition software where you should can talk unclearly so the software 
knows this. But we also think there also should be a possibility to “override” the main 
interaction, like with the use of text. Because it can be very difficult to predict every 
possible outcome.  
 
   

15 
Appendix 4: Report on human-machine partnership task  
We think that an intelligent agent that will take care of recruitment and hiring of 
new employees should have the following functionality: 
- Screening of applications​: like CV to look for experience, education etc. that 
are of relevance to the company. This can reduce the time it takes to go 
through applications, but the relevant “keywords” must be defined by the 
company hiring.  
- Connected to Linkedin: s​ creen through profiles that can be of relevance for 
recruiting and send mail to people with relevant backgrounds. 
- First interview: h ​ ave a mini interview with relevant applicants through the 
use of a chatbot etc.  
 
 
Scenario 1 level 6 - “ Computer and human generate decision options, human 
decides and carries out with support”: T ​ he computer does all the screening of 
applications and comes with recommendations and options for the human to 
decide which candidates they should proceed the process with and which to 
discard. Further the interview process will include both computer and human 
together where the human makes all the final decisions with help from 
recommendations from the computer. The advantages in this scenario is that the 
computer takes a lot of workload from the human so that the human can focus on 
the what she/he considers important for the hiring process. Some of the 
disadvantages are that the candidates might have something more to offer than the 
agent can interpret. That a human could have a bigger chance of recognizing.   
 
Scenario 2 level 8 - “Informs the human only if asked”: W ​ hen the candidate 
applies for a job he or she are introduced to a chatbot that asks the candidate a 
series of questions to check if its a good fit. For example “Are you prepared to work 
overtime?” and “Do you have experience with data analysis?”. If the candidate turns 
out to be a good fit then the robot will schedule their interview.  
 
Unfortunately humans are inherently biased and by introducing robots to the hiring 
process you can remove some of that. One possible problem can be that the robot is 
to generic and ignores the cultural fit because the applicant does not have the 
pre-defined characteristics that the agent takes into account. That humans probably 
has defined in an algoritme beforehand. An advantage is that this can speed up the 
hiring process. The human recruiters that remain will need to have a slightly more 
different skill set that the AI has. Using AI for searching and matching, putting 
candidates into piles could be a good solution for solving this, and then the human 
recruiter can do more of the tasks that are more directed (that the AI cannot 
perform).   

16