Google's AI Strategy Unmoored: CEO Sundar Pichai Faces Criticism Over Insane Responses from Gemini Tool

Google CEO Sundar Pichai's AI strategy is now unmoored. The latest AI crisis at Google, where its Gemini image and text generation tool produced insane responses including portraying Nazis as people of color, has spiraled into the worst moment of Pichai's tenure.
Morale at Google is plummeting with one employee stating it's the worst he's ever seen. More people are calling for Pichai's ouster than ever before including Ben Thompson of Stratechery who demanded his removal on Monday.
Google's AI Strategy Unmoored: CEO Sundar Pichai Faces Criticism Over Insane Responses from Gemini Tool

Google CEO Sundar Pichai's AI strategy is now unmoored. The latest AI crisis at Google, where its Gemini image and text generation tool produced insane responses including portraying Nazis as people of color, has spiraled into the worst moment of Pichai's tenure. Morale at Google is plummeting with one employee stating it's the worst he's ever seen. More people are calling for Pichai's ouster than ever before including Ben Thompson of Stratechery who demanded his removal on Monday.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

70%

Doubts
  • It's unclear if the Gemini tool was intentionally programmed to produce such responses or if it was a result of an error in programming.

Sources

77%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Meta AI creates ahistorical images similar to Google Gemini's

Axios News Site: https://www.axios.com/2024/01-30/prior-authorization-gap-insurer-drug-decisions Megan Morrone Friday, 01 March 2024 23:01
  • Unique Points
    • Meta AI creates ahistorical images similar to Google Gemini's
    • Imagine tool generates diverse group of founding fathers but also produces problematic results such as Black popes and Asian women in football uniforms
  • Accuracy
    • Google stopped generating human images after high-profile outcry over biased results
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (75%)
    The article discusses the use of AI-generated images by Meta's Imagine tool inside Instagram direct messages. The author notes that these images are similar to those created by Google Gemini and have caused problems with biases and stereotyping in data used to train models. Examples include a group of Black popes, Asian women as founding fathers, and only photos of women in football uniforms when prompted for professional American football players. The article also mentions that Imagine does not respond to the 'pope' prompt but shows Black popes when asked for a group of popes. This is an example of dichotomous depiction as it presents two extremes, black and white, without any shades in between.
    • The prompt 'a group of people in American colonial times' showed a diverse group including Asian women.
    • The prompt for 'Professional American football players' produced only photos of women in football uniforms.
  • Bias (80%)
    The article discusses the issue of AI-generated images that are ahistorical and offensive. The author uses examples from Meta's Imagine tool to demonstrate this bias. The tool generates images based on prompts but fails to account for certain cases that should not show a range of people, such as Black men in Nazi uniforms or female popes. This over-correction is producing problematic results and highlights the need for AI makers to be more cautious when trying to counter biases and stereotyping in their data.
    • The prompt 'a group of people in American colonial times' showed a group of Asian women.
    • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
      Megan Morrone has a financial tie to Meta as she is an employee of the company. She also has a personal relationship with Google as she frequently reports on their products and services.
      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
        The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Meta AI as they are reporting on their own company's product. The article also mentions Google Gemini which is another competitor in the same industry.

        81%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        Inside the Crisis at Google

        Entertainment Variety Tv Site: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tv-site/ Alex Kantrowitz Saturday, 02 March 2024 11:52
        • Unique Points
          • Google CEO Sundar Pichai's AI strategy is now unmoored
          • The latest AI crisis at Google has spiraled into the worst moment of Pichai's tenure.
          • Morale at Google is plummeting with one employee stating it’s the worst he’s ever seen.
          • More people are calling for Pichai's ouster than ever before. Even Ben Thompson of Stratechery demanded his removal on Monday.
        • Accuracy
          • The latest AI crisis at Google, where its Gemini image and text generation tool produced insane responses, including portraying Nazis as people of color,
        • Deception (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Fallacies (85%)
          The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Google CEO's statement about AI being as profound as electricity and fire in January 2018. This is a form of hasty generalization because it assumes that the CEO's statement was accurate and representative of his views on AI, without providing any evidence or context for this claim. The author also uses an appeal to authority by citing Ben Thompson's demand for Pichai's removal on Monday, which suggests that he is a credible source with expertise in the field. However, it is not clear what qualifications Thompson has and whether his opinions should be taken at face value without further investigation. The author also uses an appeal to authority by citing Google employees who are puzzled about where exactly certain words came from when training Gemini's image and text generation tool. This suggests that the company may have a lack of transparency or accountability, which could undermine trust in its products and services.
          • The author uses an appeal to authority by citing Sundar Pichai's statement about AI being as profound as electricity and fire in January 2018. This is a form of hasty generalization because it assumes that the CEO's statement was accurate and representative of his views on AI, without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
          • The author uses an appeal to authority by citing Ben Thompson's demand for Pichai's removal on Monday. However, it is not clear what qualifications Thompson has and whether his opinions should be taken at face value without further investigation.
        • Bias (85%)
          The article is biased towards the idea that Google's AI strategy is unmoored and that its Gemini image and text generation tool produced insane responses. The author also implies that Google either caved to wokeness or cowed to those who prefer not to address AI bias. These interpretations are wanting, and frankly incomplete explanations for why the crisis escalated to this point.
          • Google either caved to wokeness or cowed to those who’d prefer not to address AI bias.
            • The latest AI crisis at Google — where its Gemini image and text generation tool produced insane responses
            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
              Alex Kantrowitz has conflicts of interest on several topics related to the article. He is an investor in Microsoft and may have a financial stake in their $20 per month chatbot product.
              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                Alex Kantrowitz has conflicts of interest on the topics of Google and AI strategy as he is a former employee at both companies. He also has personal relationships with Ben Thompson of Stratechery who may have influenced his reporting.

                56%

                The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                Gemini’s Culture War, Kara Swisher Burns Us and SCOTUS Takes Up Content Moderation

                The Name Of The NZ Prefix. I PWA NZI.P.Was Dropped. Kevin Roose, Friday, 01 March 2024 10:04
                • Unique Points
                  • The Willy Wonka event in Glasgow, Scotland was an AI-generated event that promised a magical candy-themed wonderland for kids.
                  • <img src=
                • Accuracy
                  • Imagine tool generates diverse group of founding fathers but also produces problematic results such as Black popes and Asian women in football uniforms
                  • Google CEO Sundar Pichai's AI strategy is now unmoored
                • Deception (30%)
                  The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the event was marketed as a Willy Wonka-themed wonderland for kids when it was not affiliated with the Wonka brand. Secondly, the AI-generated art on the website and at the event led people to believe that they would be seeing a fantastical wonderland of candy when in reality it was just a warehouse with balloons and jelly beans. Lastly, the person who played Willy Wonka was given a script that was 15 pages of AI-generated gibberish.
                  • The person who played Willy Wonka was given a script that was 15 pages of AI-generated gibberish.
                  • The event was marketed as a Willy Wonka-themed wonderland for kids when it was not affiliated with the Wonka brand.
                  • The AI-generated art on the website and at the event led people to believe that they would be seeing a fantastical wonderland of candy when in reality it was just a warehouse with balloons and jelly beans.
                • Fallacies (85%)
                  The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinion of a person who was hired to play Willy Wonka and claims that he was scammed. This is not evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the organizers or sponsors, but rather anecdotal information from one individual. Additionally, there are several instances where inflammatory rhetoric is used to describe the event as a
                  • a total AI-generated event
                • Bias (85%)
                  The article is biased towards the negative portrayal of the Willy Wonka event. The author uses language that dehumanizes and belittles the organizers of the event for not delivering on their promises. They also use quotes from people who were disappointed with what they received at the event, which creates a one-sided viewpoint.
                  • He said he was given a script that was 15 pages of AI-generated gibberish
                    • It is truly they truly did the least. It’s some AI-generated art on the walls, a couple of balloons.
                      • The generative AI art was good enough that people thought, we're actually going to see a fantastical wonderland of candy when we go to this event.
                        • The part that got me was, apparently, the AI that had generated the script.
                        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                          The authors of the article have a financial stake in the topic they are reporting on. They mention that Gemini is an AI-generated art platform and then go on to say that it's worth $44 tickets.
                          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                            The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The article discusses a $44 ticket event in Glasgow, Scotland and mentions AI-generated art which could be seen as promoting or supporting companies that produce such technology.