Google Bard, the AI-based chatbot that the internet giant wants to compete with developments like ChatGPT, continues to make headlines… and not the good ones. The Bloomberg article links internal reactions of employees by Google prior to launch, and general feedback has ranged from negative to derogatory.

First it should be said that Google defines Bard as a “experiment”with what it means. And the same CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, acknowledged that they are behind the competition: “In a way, I feel like we’ve taken an updated Civic and put it in a race against more powerful cars.“. But the rush is not good and everything points to it Bard took off without being properly prepared as befits a company that has spearheaded much of the research that underpins current advances in artificial intelligence in recent years.

The problem for Google is that it has not yet integrated a user-friendly version of the chatbot, and the huge popularity of ChatGPT and especially Microsoft’s announcement of a multi-million dollar investment in Bing, they set off all the alarms at Mountain View Barracks. Sundar Pichai issued a “code red” for development teams to speed up Google’s AI projects, and the results so far have not been good. But perhaps the flight forward is necessary so that “Google will be destroyed in a few years”, as the creator of Gmail said.

Google Bard is “pathetic” and other nice things

Bloomberg shared details of interviews with 18 current and former Google employees and internal documents where employees expressed their displeasure with the chatbot and Google’s rush to make it available to the general public. Some of the most prominent qualifiers in the discussions defined a chatbot as “pathetic”, “pathological liar”, “disgraceful” and others in the same sense.

One employee wrote that when Bard was asked for suggestions on how to land a plane, he regularly gave advice that would lead to an accident; another said that after his answers about diving “likely to result in serious injury or death”. In February, another employee raised the issues in an internal message group: “A bard is worse than useless: please don’t cast him”. The note was viewed by nearly 7,000 people, many of whom agreed that the AI’s answers were inconsistent or even grossly incorrect to simple queries.

And the question of ethics remains, although here ChatGPT is affected as much or more than anything related to AI. Employees share that ethics took a back seat when Google Bard was launched and competition became the priority. Even employees working in the ethics team were encouraged so that they do not interfere with the start.

The report said that Google “overturned” risk assessments submitted by members of the security team who noted that Bard could cause harm. Those fears were unfounded and the launch came at the end of March. “The ethics of artificial intelligence have taken a back seat”explains Meredith Whittaker, president of the Signal Foundation and former Google executive. “Unless ethics take precedence over profit and growth, these services will ultimately fail”.

Artificial Intelligence: Controversy and Debate

Advances in artificial intelligence have been huge in recent years and in many areas. Some are extremely promising, such as those tackling complex problems in medical research by developing advanced algorithms to find cures for diseases. Others are scary, very scary, like those involving autonomous weapons and military robots. And in between everything else. There are serious concerns about the ethics and safety of some developments, as well as other more tangible ones, such as those related to employment.

Recently, a group of 1,000 people, including scientists, engineers, intellectuals, businessmen, politicians and big names in the world of technology, signed an open letter demanding suspension for six months development of the largest artificial intelligence projects before “a profound risk to society and humanity” which may arise without proper control and management.

Unfortunately, we have not received a response or government intervention to impose a moratorium, which after what we have seen is much needed.