home logo Similartool.AI
Homeright arrowAI Newsright arrowunboxing-brand-new-google-bard-and-gpt-4-a-side-by-side-exploration

Unboxing Brand New Google Bard and GPT-4: A Side-by-Side Exploration

By Cassie Kozyrkov     Updated Mar 2, 2024

Join Cassie Kozyrkov as she unveils and compares the fresh-from-the-box Google Bard, powered by LaMDA, and the latest GPT-4 from OpenAI. Dive into the functionalities and quirks of these two advanced language models.

1. A Philosophical First Contact

Cassie starts the comparison by posing a heady question to both models about epistemology, aiming to elicit not just facts but also an opinion. The response from Google Bard is seasoned with a dash of controversy, veering towards being conversational and 'opinionated', which hints at a human-like interaction.

In contrast, GPT-4 maintains a neutral stance, providing balanced, informative content that could easily blend into the pages of an encyclopedia. This choice mirrors OpenAI's intention for GPT-4 to remain fact-oriented and non-biased.

The interaction strikes at the heart of what we expect from AI: do we want a reflection of our human conversational patterns, or do we seek a straight-to-the-point information dispenser?

2. User Experience and Interface Design

Observing the user experience, we note the subtle difference in how Bard and GPT-4 reveal their thoughts. Google Bard puts all its cards on the table at once, delivering complete thoughts in a single reveal, which some may find less cluttered.

On the flip side, GPT-4's responses unfold in real-time, akin to watching a human type out their thoughts. This feature grants a sense of anticipation and flow to the interaction, though it may be perceived as more visually busy.

Cassie points out this difference in presentation styles, underlining that the selection between the two could boil down to personal preference in how we like our information served.

3. Market Trust and Economic Impact

The stock market's reaction to Google Bard compared to Bing raises questions about market trust. Despite Bard's introduction, Google's stock hasn't seen significant movement, suggesting that Bing might currently hold more confidence among investors when it comes to AI innovations.

This hesitation might be attributed to uncertainty regarding Bard's ability to differentiate and execute more effectively than Bing's AI, or it could be an indicator of the market's wait-and-see approach towards Google's latest venture.

The financial aspect of new AI releases is thus always under scrutiny, revealing not just technological interest but also economic confidence in the ventures.

4. Balancing Bias and Objectivity

Cassie's presentation sparks the debate on Bard's use of anthropomorphism, suggesting a marketing angle that plays on the human tendency to seek relatable interactions. The charm of Google Bard's 'opinionated' nature contrasts starkly with GPT-4's steadfast commitment to unpretentious truth.

Critics argue that employing human psychology to endear an AI could be a sales tactic, while others appreciate the straightforward, fact-based approach of GPT-4. This debate underscores the perennial challenge of creating AI that is engaging without sacrificing objectivity.

Ultimately, the decision hangs on what users are searching for in AI companions: a hint of human touch, or a reliable bank of impartial knowledge.


In the grand unboxing of Google Bard and GPT-4, we witnessed a firsthand comparison of both large language models. The exploration centered on their responses to philosophical quandaries, user experience, and personal biases, demonstrating distinct approaches in AI technology. What does this mean for users seeking information or a more personable conversation from AI? This article explores the nuances and offers insights based on Cassie's interactive session and public commentary.