Google Bard: the ’collapse’ on the stock exchange, G’s gigantism and its ’sl | Generative ai in Finance and Banking | Examples of Generative ai Tools | Generative ai Google Tutorial | Turtles AI

Google Bard: the ’collapse’ on the stock exchange, G’s gigantism and its ’sl
Google lost $120 billion in the stock market yesterday following the introduction of Bard, a system aimed at competing with and potentially surpassing ChatGPT. The reason for the loss appears to be an error made by Bard in responding to a user prompt, but we will delve deeper to look for any deeper motivations in Google's strategy, which was not optimal for once. Google after Bard Google value after Bard's presentationGoogle has been the market leader and first mover for many years. It revolutionized the world of internet search with its simple yet powerful search engine. Google's success has made all other competitors, such as WebCrawler, Lycos, Infoseek, Yahoo, and AltaVista, irrelevant. The search engine's simple and iconic screen, featuring the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button, used algorithms to deliver the page most likely to interest the searcher. Google's success is due to its proprietary ranking algorithms, particularly PageRank. This aspect of Google's search algorithm is crucial in determining the relevance and importance of web pages within its index. The algorithm evaluates the number and quality of links pointing to a particular website and uses this information to rank it compared to other sites. The PageRank score of a web page is determined by its relevance to a specific search and its relevance compared to other web pages. Google uses the score to order its search results and present users with the most relevant and authoritative pages. PageRank is a crucial aspect of Google's search algorithm that helps it determine the relevance and importance of web pages in its index. It evaluates the number and quality of links that point to a particular website and uses that information to rank it relative to other websites. The PageRank score of a web page is determined by its relevance to a query and its significance to other web pages. The score is used by Google to sort the search results and present the most relevant and authoritative web pages to users. PageRank works by treating each link to a website as a vote of confidence in the content of that website. The more votes a website receives from other websites, the higher its PageRank score. However, the quality of the linking website also plays a role in determining the PageRank score. For example, a link from a highly authoritative website will have a greater impact on a website's PageRank score than a link from a less authoritative website. Google's PageRank algorithm is constantly updated to ensure that the search results remain relevant and valuable for users. It takes into account a variety of factors, including the relevance of the web page's content to the search query, the quality of the linking websites, and the relevance of the linking pages. The algorithm also considers the popularity and usage of a web page, as well as its relevance to other pages in the Google index. Google's mechanism has not only made it the undisputed market leader, but has also enabled it to set trends and fashions over the last 20 years. However, even the best mechanisms sometimes fail. Yesterday, Alphabet Inc., the holding company that manages Google's projects, lost 9% in the stock market in a single day. The problem behind this stock market "disaster" is called ChatGPT. Or, more precisely, what happened is due to how Google has dealt with the whole AI theme. It all starts a little over 6 months ago, when Lemoine Blake, a Google engineer, hit the headlines for claiming that a Google product in testing had developed a form of consciousness. Originally hired to test a new product (then referred to as LaMDA) to prevent it from using inappropriate language, the engineer soon became convinced - completely unfoundedly - that the algorithm had many more skills than desired. In an interview, Lamoine stated, "If I didn't know exactly that it was this computer program we just built, I would think it was a 7 or 8-year-old child who knows physics." He then went further, stating that LaMDA was becoming sentient. The Google spokesman quickly responded to these claims with this message: "Our team of ethics and technology experts assessed Blake's concerns based on AI principles and informed him that the evidence does not support his claims. He was told there was no evidence that LaMDA was sentient (and many, instead, against)." The engineer was subsequently suspended, and to date, there has been no specific news of him, nor is he relevant to this analysis. What matters is that this media stunt occurred well before ChatGPT, from OpenAI, became viral, ending up occupying daily news headlines. This is very important because it shows how Google could have anticipated ChatGPT or at least countered it promptly if only it had wanted to release the system in beta version. Instead, it waited until today to publicly talk about Bard (the official name of the product, based on LaMDA). LaMDA is therefore the probabilistic algorithm that generates a plausible output based on the sequence of terms and the prompt (like the GPT that chatGPT is based on). The relevant difference between the two, as highlighted by Google, is that its Bard should have the ability to compare its output with online documents, while we know that chatGPT is "stuck" in 2021. Therefore, there should be a better outcome, due to the greater actuality of the sources, but also more likelihood, given that we know how chatGPT can be "mendacious." With that said, let's get to yesterday's crash. We could have imagined that Google's stock would have risen with the presentation of Bard. Why the collapse instead? For three main reasons:
  1. The most well-known and obvious reason was an error made by Bard during the public demonstration. This is easily forgiven for ChatGPT, which was presented as a beta product, in testing, and released only for people to experiment with. It is much less forgiving for the big G, especially after the wait and reputation the company carries.
  2. A more operational aspect: Bard is currently open to only a few beta testers. Ordinary people cannot use it yet, so the announcement smells a lot of "I would like to, but I can't yet," especially in light of point 1.
  3. The third point is a contributing factor to the stock loss, but also and above all, the cause of what happened in point 1. Google has handled the AI game very badly so far. From what could have been an advantage (as a first mover), it has preferred to wait and, even, block communications as much as possible about its product, as the Blake incident taught. In other words, it found itself playing catch up in a scenario where everyone is talking about what is now a fierce competitor. It acted under pressure and made a clear communication error.
  I am absolutely convinced that this is just a phase and that it will not impact Google's position in the short and medium terms, even though it is no longer the only rooster in the henhouse. The AI world will probably have a disruptive effect in many areas and that's why dominating it is now crucial, just as it was (and still is) dominating internet searches. Still, one must ask why there was this cautious attitude, this "slowness" in bringing a potentially disruptive new product to the public. This difficulty in seeing the imminent danger of a new entrant in a potentially-so-important market. Perhaps it's due to the excessive rigidity of such a large and well-reputed organization. Or perhaps the reason lies in what happened with Blake; Google's AI product would have been under the spotlight, after those statements and the subsequent uproar. OpenAI would therefore have seized the moment, entering into a "perfect storm" against Google and exploiting the moment of great uproar over "nearly sentient" AIs (which, as we now know, are far from being so... or at least, are as sentient as a magician is magical). OpenAI's strategy should also be analyzed, therefore, to better understand where Google went wrong. In fact, it managed the launch of OpenAI in an exemplary manner, apparently under the radar, without even bothering to give its product an "appealing" brand (ChatGPT is very technical). They also clearly indicated that this product was in beta version, a definitely improvable proof-of-concept, that could have committed errors, even gross or serious. All of this is clearly written on the home page, which warns us of all the risks and limitations of this product. Despite this, ChatGPT is a staggering success. Meanwhile, Bard has so far caused a loss of 120 billion to Google's market value.