[woodruffw]

It's probably somewhere around "USG should not offer a chatbot on its websites."

You're right that the bot can't possibly do the right thing in all possible scenarios here, which makes it clear that the bot's only actual purpose is to enable self-dealing, not be of value to the public.

[jjk166]

That something can be broken by a sufficiently bad actor does not mean it's not useful to the overwhelming majority of people who use it for what it was meant for.

[woodruffw]

I think the standard for public resources should be higher than this: it’s not good enough for it to be possibly useful, it has to be in fact useful. TFA provides evidence of the chatbot being the opposite of useful, beyond telling people to stick things in their butts.

(Or in other words: show me something you’d ask a chatbot here, and I’ll show you something you can put on a single HTML page.)