Natural Language Processing For Chatbots

Over the last year, I’ve seen many people fall into the same trap: They launch an AI-powered agent (chatbot, assistant, support tool, etc.)… But only track surface-level KPIs — like response time or number of users. That’s not enough. To create AI systems that actually deliver value, we need 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰, 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻-𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘀 that reflect: • User trust • Task success • Business impact • Experience quality    This infographic highlights 15 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 dimensions to consider: ↳ 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆 — Are your AI answers actually useful and correct? ↳ 𝗧𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗲 — Can the agent complete full workflows, not just answer trivia? ↳ 𝗟𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 — Response speed still matters, especially in production. ↳ 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 — How often are users returning or interacting meaningfully? ↳ 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗲 — Did the user achieve their goal? This is your north star. ↳ 𝗘𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗲 — Irrelevant or wrong responses? That’s friction. ↳ 𝗦𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 — Longer isn’t always better — it depends on the goal. ↳ 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 — Are users coming back 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 the first experience? ↳ 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 — Especially critical at scale. Budget-wise agents win. ↳ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗵 — Can the agent handle follow-ups and multi-turn dialogue? ↳ 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗦𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 — Feedback from actual users is gold. ↳ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 — Can your AI 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳 to earlier inputs? ↳ 𝗦𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 — Can it handle volume 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 degrading performance? ↳ 𝗞𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 — This is key for RAG-based agents. ↳ 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 — Is your AI learning and improving over time? If you're building or managing AI agents — bookmark this. Whether it's a support bot, GenAI assistant, or a multi-agent system — these are the metrics that will shape real-world success. 𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝗜 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀? Let’s make this list even stronger — drop your thoughts 👇

You've built your AI agent... but how do you know it's not failing silently in production? Building AI agents is only the beginning. If you’re thinking of shipping agents into production without a solid evaluation loop, you’re setting yourself up for silent failures, wasted compute, and eventully broken trust. Here’s how to make your AI agents production-ready with a clear, actionable evaluation framework: 𝟭. 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿 The router is your agent’s control center. Make sure you’re logging: - Function Selection: Which skill or tool did it choose? Was it the right one for the input? - Parameter Extraction: Did it extract the correct arguments? Were they formatted and passed correctly? ✅ Action: Add logs and traces to every routing decision. Measure correctness on real queries, not just happy paths. 𝟮. 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀 These are your execution blocks; API calls, RAG pipelines, code snippets, etc. You need to track: - Task Execution: Did the function run successfully? - Output Validity: Was the result accurate, complete, and usable? ✅ Action: Wrap skills with validation checks. Add fallback logic if a skill returns an invalid or incomplete response. 𝟯. 𝗘𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗵 This is where most agents break down in production: taking too many steps or producing inconsistent outcomes. Track: - Step Count: How many hops did it take to get to a result? - Behavior Consistency: Does the agent respond the same way to similar inputs? ✅ Action: Set thresholds for max steps per query. Create dashboards to visualize behavior drift over time. 𝟰. 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗠𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 Don’t just measure token count or latency. Tie success to outcomes. Examples: - Was the support ticket resolved? - Did the agent generate correct code? - Was the user satisfied? ✅ Action: Align evaluation metrics with real business KPIs. Share them with product and ops teams. Make it measurable. Make it observable. Make it reliable. That’s how enterprises scale AI agents. Easier said than done.

Stop asking LLMs to "check for accuracy." >> Make the models work instead. There are ways to improve the accuracy of chatbot answers. Instead of accepting it's initial output, you can force it to reevaluate its work in meaningful ways. You can get to truth by forcing your LLM to transform, not give a wink and a nod to the answer it already generated. Have it reprocess your draft. And provide evidence. Some sweet tactics you can try: 🔹Rebuild: "Recreate this answer from fresh sources only. Return what changed." 🔹Cite everything: "Attach a source and short quote after every claim." 🔹Diff it: "Compare the rebuild to the original. List conflicts and missing pieces." 🔹Justify: "For each bullet, add ‘Because: [evidence] >> [claim]’." 🔹Expand: "Add 1 example, 1 edge case, 1 failure mode for each item." 🔹Pros and cons: "Give tradeoffs for each. Note who benefits and who loses." 🔹Disprove: "Try to falsify each point. Provide counterexamples." 🔹Contradiction scan: "Find claims that conflict with each other." 🔹Freshness check: "Verify dates, versions, and timelines. Flag anything stale." 🔹Triangulate: "Give 3 independent passes, then merge them with a rationale." 🔹Referee mode: "Score another LLM’s output with a rubric and evidence." Try using multiple LLMs to cross-check each other. Bottom line: don’t ask "Accurate?" Make the model to work.

If you’re getting started with AI agents, this is for you 👇 I’ve seen so many builders jump straight into wiring up LangChain or CrewAI without ever understanding what actually makes an LLM act like an agent, and not just a glorified autocomplete engine. I put together a 10-phase roadmap to help you go from foundational concepts → all the way to building, deploying, and scaling multi-agent systems in production. Phase 1: Understand what “agentic AI” actually means → What makes an agent different from a chatbot → Why long-context alone isn’t enough → How tools, memory, and environment drive reasoning Phase 2: Learn the core components → LLM = brain → Memory = context (short + long term) → Tools = actuators → Environment = where the agent runs Phase 3: Prompting for agents → System vs user prompts → Role-based task prompting → Prompt chaining with state tracking → Format constraints and expected outputs Phase 4: Build your first basic agent → Start with a single-task agent → Use UI (Claude or GPT) before code → Iterate prompt → observe behavior → refine Phase 5: Add memory → Use buffers for short-term recall → Integrate vector DBs for long-term → Enable retrieval via user queries → Keep session memory dynamically updated Phase 6: Add tools and external APIs → Function calling = where things get real → Connect search, calendar, custom APIs → Handle agent I/O with guardrails → Test tool behaviors in isolation Phase 7: Build full single-agent workflows → Prompt → Memory → Tool → Response → Add error handling + fallbacks → Use LangGraph or n8n for orchestration → Log actions for replay/debugging Phase 8: Multi-agent coordination → Assign roles (planner, executor, critic) → Share context and working memory → Use A2A/TAP for agent-to-agent messaging → Test decision workflows in teams Phase 9: Deploy and monitor → Host on Replit, Vercel, Render → Monitor tokens, latency, error rates → Add API rate limits + safety rules → Setup logging, alerts, dashboards Phase 10: Join the builder ecosystem → Use Model Context Protocol (MCP) → Contribute to LangChain, CrewAI, AutoGen → Test on open evals (EvalProtocol, SWE-bench, etc.) → Share workflows, follow updates, build in public This is the same path I recommend to anyone transitioning from prompting → to building production-grade agents. Save it. Share it. And let me know what phase you’re in, or where you’re stuck. 〰️〰️〰️ Follow me (Aishwarya Srinivasan) for more AI insight and subscribe to my Substack to find more in-depth blogs and weekly updates in AI: https://lnkd.in/dpBNr6Jg

LLMs are great for data processing, but using new techniques doesn't mean you get to abandon old best practices. The precision and accuracy of LLMs still need to be monitored and maintained, just like with any other AI model. Tips for maintaining accuracy and precision with LLMs: • Define within your team EXACTLY what the desired output looks like. Any area of ambiguity should be resolved with a concrete answer. Even if the business "doesn't care," you should define a behavior. Letting the LLM make these decisions for you leads to high variance/low precision models that are difficult to monitor. • Understand that the most gorgeously-written, seemingly clear and concise prompts can still produce trash. LLMs are not people and don't follow directions like people do. You have to test your prompts over and over and over, no matter how good they look. • Make small prompt changes and carefully monitor each change. Changes should be version tracked and vetted by other developers. • A small change in one part of the prompt can cause seemingly-unrelated regressions (again, LLMs are not people). Regression tests are essential for EVERY change. Organize a list of test case inputs, including those that demonstrate previously-fixed bugs and test your prompt against them. • Test cases should include "controls" where the prompt has historically performed well. Any change to the control output should be studied and any incorrect change is a test failure. • Regression tests should have a single documented bug and clearly-defined success/failure metrics. "If the output contains A, then pass. If output contains B, then fail." This makes it easy to quickly mark regression tests as pass/fail (ideally, automating this process). If a different failure/bug is noted, then it should still be fixed, but separately, and pulled out into a separate test. Any other tips for working with LLMs and data processing?

We've spoken with 30 companies who developed RAG-based chatbots on PDF documents. Every single one has failed: Core issues: 1) In vector space, "non-dairy products" is often closer to "milk" than "meat," this is a fundamental flaw of vector embedding search because they're very lossy. 2) Splitting documents into smaller chunks disrupts coherence, breaking cross-references and context. 3) Adopting new RAG architectures, re-embedding chunks with new models, and rerankers requires continuous, costly data (re)engineering efforts. 4) No Support for Aggregations – Vector search struggles with queries requiring aggregation (e.g., max, min, total), making it unreliable for analytical use cases. As a result, companies band-aid their chatbots by writing complex heuristics to patch these failures. Ironically, many end up going back to rule-based chatbots. Our advice is simple - Do You Even Need RAG? LLM models are dirt cheap now and quite comparable to embedding models. If your documents are small: just load them directly into the LLM context. If your documents are large: Enrich with rich metadata and query the right documents and pages based on the metadata. Chatting on documents must be redesigned.

AI models like ChatGPT and Claude are powerful, but they aren’t perfect. They can sometimes produce inaccurate, biased, or misleading answers due to issues related to data quality, training methods, prompt handling, context management, and system deployment. These problems arise from the complex interaction between model design, user input, and infrastructure. Here are the main factors that explain why incorrect outputs occur: 1. Model Training Limitations AI relies on the data it is trained on. Gaps, outdated information, or insufficient coverage of niche topics lead to shallow reasoning, overfitting to common patterns, and poor handling of rare scenarios. 2. Bias & Hallucination Issues Models can reflect social biases or create “hallucinations,” which are confident but false details. This leads to made-up facts, skewed statistics, or misleading narratives. 3. External Integration & Tooling Issues When AI connects to APIs, tools, or data pipelines, miscommunication, outdated integrations, or parsing errors can result in incorrect outputs or failed workflows. 4. Prompt Engineering Mistakes Ambiguous, vague, or overloaded prompts confuse the model. Without clear, refined instructions, outputs may drift off-task or omit key details. 5. Context Window Constraints AI has a limited memory span. Long inputs can cause it to forget earlier details, compress context poorly, or misinterpret references, resulting in incomplete responses. 6. Lack of Domain Adaptation General-purpose models struggle in specialized fields. Without fine-tuning, they provide generic insights, misuse terminology, or overlook expert-level knowledge. 7. Infrastructure & Deployment Challenges Performance relies on reliable infrastructure. Problems with GPU allocation, latency, scaling, or compliance can lower accuracy and system stability. Wrong outputs don’t mean AI is "broken." They show the challenge of balancing data quality, engineering, context management, and infrastructure. Tackling these issues makes AI systems stronger, more dependable, and ready for businesses. #LLM

I've tested over 20 AI agent frameworks in the past 2 years. Building with them, breaking them, trying to make them work in real scenarios. Here's the brutal truth: 99% of them fail when real customers show up. Most are impressive in demos but struggle with actual conversations. Then I came across Parlant in the conversational AI space. And it's genuinely different. Here's what caught my attention: 1. The Engineering behind it: 40,000 lines of optimized code backed by 30,000 lines of tests. That tells you how much real-world complexity they've actually solved. 2. It works out of the box: You get a managed conversational agent in about 3 minutes that handles conversations better than most frameworks I've tried. 3. Conversation Modeling Approach: Instead of rigid flowcharts or unreliable system prompts, they use something called "Conversation Modeling." Here's how it actually works: 1. Contextual Guidelines: ↳ Every behavior is defined as a specific guideline. ↳ Condition: "Customer wants to return an item" ↳ Action: "Get order number and item name, then help them return it" 2. Controlled Tool Usage: ↳ Tools are tied to specific guidelines ↳ No random LLM decisions about when to call APIs ↳ Your tools only run when the guideline conditions are met. 3. Utterances Feature: ↳ Checks for pre-approved response templates first ↳ Uses those templates when available ↳ Automatically fills in dynamic data (like flight info or account numbers) ↳ Only falls back to generation when no template exists What I Really Like: It scales with your needs. You can add more behavioral nuance as you grow without breaking existing functionality. What's even better? It works with ALL major LLM providers - OpenAI, Gemini, Llama 3, Anthropic, and more. For anyone building conversational AI, especially in regulated industries, this approach makes sense. Your agents can now be both conversational AND compliant. AI Agent that actually does what you tell it to do. If you’re serious about building customer support agents and tired of flaky behavior, try Parlant.

We’re entering an era where AI isn’t just answering questions — it’s starting to take action. From booking meetings to writing reports to managing systems, AI agents are slowly becoming the digital coworkers of tomorrow!!!! But building an AI agent that’s actually helpful — and scalable — is a whole different challenge. That’s why I created this 10-step roadmap for building scalable AI agents (2025 Edition) — to break it down clearly and practically. Here’s what it covers and why it matters: - Start with the right model Don’t just pick the most powerful LLM. Choose one that fits your use case — stable responses, good reasoning, and support for tools and APIs. - Teach the agent how to think Should it act quickly or pause and plan? Should it break tasks into steps? These choices define how reliable your agent will be. - Write clear instructions Just like onboarding a new hire, agents need structured guidance. Define the format, tone, when to use tools, and what to do if something fails. - Give it memory AI models forget — fast. Add memory so your agent remembers what happened in past conversations, knows user preferences, and keeps improving. - Connect it to real tools Want your agent to actually do something? Plug it into tools like CRMs, databases, or email. Otherwise, it’s just chat. - Assign one clear job Vague tasks like “be helpful” lead to messy results. Clear tasks like “summarize user feedback and suggest improvements” lead to real impact. - Use agent teams Sometimes, one agent isn’t enough. Use multiple agents with different roles — one gathers info, another interprets it, another delivers output. - Monitor and improve Watch how your agent performs, gather feedback, and tweak as needed. This is how you go from a working demo to something production-ready. - Test and version everything Just like software, agents evolve. Track what works, test different versions, and always have a backup plan. - Deploy and scale smartly From APIs to autoscaling — once your agent works, make sure it can scale without breaking. Why this matters: The AI agent space is moving fast. Companies are using them to improve support, sales, internal workflows, and much more. If you work in tech, data, product, or operations — learning how to build and use agents is quickly becoming a must-have skill. This roadmap is a great place to start or to benchmark your current approach. What step are you on right now?

Why would your users distrust flawless systems? Recent data shows 40% of leaders identify explainability as a major GenAI adoption risk, yet only 17% are actually addressing it. This gap determines whether humans accept or override AI-driven insights. As founders building AI-powered solutions, we face a counterintuitive truth: technically superior models often deliver worse business outcomes because skeptical users simply ignore them. The most successful implementations reveal that interpretability isn't about exposing mathematical gradients—it's about delivering stakeholder-specific narratives that build confidence. Three practical strategies separate winning AI products from those gathering dust: 1️⃣ Progressive disclosure layers Different stakeholders need different explanations. Your dashboard should let users drill from plain-language assessments to increasingly technical evidence. 2️⃣ Simulatability tests Can your users predict what your system will do next in familiar scenarios? When users can anticipate AI behavior with >80% accuracy, trust metrics improve dramatically. Run regular "prediction exercises" with early users to identify where your system's logic feels alien. 3️⃣ Auditable memory systems Every autonomous step should log its chain-of-thought in domain language. These records serve multiple purposes: incident investigation, training data, and regulatory compliance. They become invaluable when problems occur, providing immediate visibility into decision paths. For early-stage companies, these trust-building mechanisms are more than luxuries. They accelerate adoption. When selling to enterprises or regulated industries, they're table stakes. The fastest-growing AI companies don't just build better algorithms - they build better trust interfaces. While resources may be constrained, embedding these principles early costs far less than retrofitting them after hitting an adoption ceiling. Small teams can implement "minimum viable trust" versions of these strategies with focused effort. Building AI products is fundamentally about creating trust interfaces, not just algorithmic performance. #startups #founders #growth #ai