I can&#x27;t help feeling there&#x27;s a &quot;walking before you run&quot; thing here. Unsurprisingly, no, you couldn&#x27;t make something to do this yet. Because we haven&#x27;t yet built anything that passes the Turing test.<p>But the fact that we can&#x27;t yet do that doesn&#x27;t mean that bots are going to be useless. That&#x27;d be like looking at the first ocean-going freight vessels and saying &quot;well, it can&#x27;t move 300,000 tonnes of freight, so it&#x27;s useless), or the Wright Flyer and saying that because it can&#x27;t cross the Atlantic, it&#x27;s a bit rubbish. (I&#x27;m aware this is close to straw manning, but bare with me...)<p>Sure, early proofs of concept are often both limited in scope and fairly dire. But that doesn&#x27;t mean there&#x27;s no potential utility in them and what they do. I suspect bots are similar. Initial, narrow use-case versions will be very useful at providing value in specific circumstances, and eventually they&#x27;ll become more general in nature. But decrying them at this stage seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.