You are correct, I too tend to humanize LLMs to some degree.

FYI the only source listed anywhere in the article is Bard itself. This journalist seems to just interview an LLM and take the outputs as fact.

Public service announcement: this article seems to be written like their only source was asking Bard some questions. If you trust Bard enough to tell you Google’s plans, you may as well be asking it when the second coming is happening, because it’ll be just as confident when it hallucinates that answer too.

LMAO I opened the link expecting an article, and I got a steady flow of quotations, but nothing to indicate who is being quoted. At the very end, the sentence “For its part, Bard states…” is used, and I can think of no clearer way to display your fundamental misunderstanding of AI. Bard can’t “state” shit in any official capacity. Bard is the same caliber of LLM as GPT, and both have a documented tendency to hallucinate.