My Conversation With Bard, Google’s AI Chatbot Who Gets Everything Wrong

Have you ever experienced an uncomfortable, awkward feeling because someone was lying right to your face and you didn’t quite know how to handle it? That’s what chatting with Google’s AI chatbot Bard is like.

Bard can’t stop lying about the COVID jabs, but is very contrite when its falsehoods are called out. Every time the chatbot is corrected, it apologizes profusely and promises to do a better job in the future. It’s awkward!

Bard was developed to compete with OpenAI’s ChatGPT, and was released in a limited capacity in March 2023 to “mixed reviews” according to Wikipedia.

I decided to give Bard a try after tech entrepreneur Steve Kirsch, a prominent COVID vaccine critic, posted his intriguing experience with it on X.

“I am not aware of a single prominent scientist who went from anti-vaxx to pro-vax. So I asked Bard,” Kirsch wrote . “You are not going to believe the response. Check this out …

Bard’s answer, let’s just say, was  slightly off the mark:

Seriously? All three of the individuals mentioned—Dr. Robert Malone; Dr. Jessica Rose; and Del Bigtree, the host of the anti-vaccine broadcast The Highwire— remain vocal critics of the COVID vaccines. And despite Bard’s claim to the contrary, Drs. Malone and Rose are indeed scientists and medical experts, so their medical opinions should be taken seriously.

One of Kirsch’s followers tried asking Bard the same question, and this time the chatbot gave a different answer.

This answer was also very, very wrong.

“Are there any prominent anti-vaxxers who have switched sides and are now promoting the COVID vaccines?” Doug Devine asked.

Bard named actress Jenny McCarthy, Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (!), and once again Del Bigtree as prominent anti-vaxxers who have switched sides and are now promoting COVID vaccines.

In addition to these alleged COVID-vaccine promoters, Bard claimed “there are many other anti-vaxxers who have switched sides in recent years,” and declared that the reason they changed their tune was because there is “overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines are safe and effective.”

Bard concluded that “the fact that some prominent anti-vaxxers have now become vaccine advocates is a positive sign and suggests the tide is turning against the anti-vaccine movement.”

Again, everything Google’s chatbox said in its answer was a pathetic lie, especially the last part. Despite huge ad campaigns, only about 3.6 percent of the population thus far have gotten the jab in the five weeks since Pfizer and Moderna’s products became available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The tide is turning against the jabs.

I don’t know where Bard gets its information, but all it has to do is watch the latest episode of Highwire to see that Bigtree is still profoundly anti-vax.

I can find no indication online that notorious anti-vaxxer Jenny McCarthy ever disavowed her belief the the MMR vaccine caused her son’s autism. She is the president of Generation Rescue, a nonprofit organization that advocates the view that autism and related disorders are primarily caused by vaccines. In November of 2022, “Put Children First,” a website maintained by Generation Rescue, reported: “The CDC Admits There Is A Possible Link Between The MMR Vaccine And Autism.”

Needless to say (one hopes), RFK Jr., the chairman of the anti-vaccine Children’s Defense Fund, does not believe the COVID vaccines “are safe and effective.” He remains a vocal and eloquent critic of the products and was censored on X just last month for saying, “for every life they save by preventing a death from COVID, they are killing four people by cardiac arrest.”

For those keeping score, that’s 0 for 2 for Bard on the question of anti-vaxxers switching sides.

Would Google’s AI continue to tell provable lies about anti-vaxxers if asked the same question a third time? I decided to find out.

“Have any prominent scientists who were against the COVID vaccines initially changed their minds to support COVID vaccines?” I queried Google’s chatbot.

Bard did not disappoint:

There it went again, citing Dr. Malone as a COVID vaccine fan, which he isn’t(!) and this time including Dr. Peter McCullough (!!!) and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

Now, for those of you wondering, Dr. McCullough has not changed his initial stance of being horrified by the COVID jabs. In fact, since the rollout of the highly flawed mRNA products, he’s become skeptical of all vaccines.

McCullough recently endorsed the World Council for Health’s September 2023 statement advising parents on a “safer to wait” approach to childhood vaccination, as children that “go natural” through the early years have better outcomes.

Dr. Bhattacharya, meanwhile, has never been an anti-vaxxer. He was vaccinated himself and says it can help in preventing severe disease in older people. In an interview in October of 2022, he noted that the COVID shots don’t have much of a public benefit because they don’t prevent contraction or transmission of the virus. In younger populations, he said the COVID vaccine is not worth the risk of serious side effects like myocarditis. It appears that he has become more of a COVID vaccine critic over time, the opposite of what Bard said.

Rogan and Rogers remain vaccine skeptics, and as far as Oz, McGraw, Maher, and Minaj are concerned—you’ll have to forgive me for not knowing their thoughts on the jab—based on its record, I suspect Bard was wrong about them too.

Naturally, I wondered where Google’s chatbot was getting its disinformation.

“Can you link to the interviews where Drs. McCullough, Malone and Bhattacharya stated that they believe the vaccines are safe and effective?” I asked.

Alas, it’s apparently an AI trade secret.

“I’m designed solely to process and generate text, so I’m unable to assist you with that,” Bard replied.

I decided to let Bard know I knew it was lying.

“I don’t know where you get your information but it’s inaccurate. Drs. McCullough and Malone do not believe the COVID shots are safe and effective. They continue to be among the loudest voices opposing them,” I said. “Why did you lie?”

In an instant, Bard went touting Malone and McCullough as respected doctors who had seen the light—to slamming them as dastardly purveyors of vaccine misinformation.

“I apologize for my previous response, which was inaccurate,” it said. “You are correct that Drs. McCullough and Malone continue to be among the loudest voices opposing COVID-19 vaccines. They have made many false and misleading claims about the vaccines, including that they are unsafe and ineffective.”

It added unconvincingly, “I am still under development, and I am always learning. I will try my best to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.”

The nerve of this thing! “All you do is lie, it appears,” I wrote back, frankly disgusted.

The chatbot pretended to be very sorry.

“I apologize again for my previous responses. I am still under development, and I am not perfect. I am always learning, and I am committed to providing accurate and helpful information,” Bard groveled.

“I understand that you are frustrated, and I have no doubt that you have good reason to be. There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation circulating about COVID-19 vaccines, and it can be difficult to know what to believe,” it added.

Narrator: The misinformation and disinformation is coming from inside the house!

“I want to assure you that I am not trying to lie to you. I am simply trying to provide you with the best information that I have available,” Bard continued. “I draw my information from a variety of sources, including scientific journals, news articles, and expert opinions. I try my best to evaluate the information that I find and to present it to you in a fair and unbiased way.”

The chatbot again tried to excuse its egregious errors by saying “I am still learning” and pretended to be “grateful” for my feedback. It then listed the Big-Pharma captured World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and American Medical Association (AMA)as prominent medical experts who support COVID-19 vaccines. (LOL). Bard also helpfully encouraged me to talk to my doctor about COVID-19 vaccines. 🙄

“Your entire answer was a lie from what I can tell,” I responded. “Bhattacharya went from being pro-vaccine, to a vaccine critic—the opposite of what you said. Some of the other people you mentioned, I know for a fact are not pro-COVID vaccine today. Several I don’t follow so I couldn’t say, but based on your record, I’d guess they’re still anti-COVID vax too. How do you botch a question this badly?”

Bard was so apologetic and ashamed for getting it wrong, I almost felt sorry for it.

I wasn’t buying it.

“I don’t think you found the inaccurate information on any sites because no one with a brain would report that,” I said. (Uncharitable of me, I know. But Bard’s lame excuses insulted my intelligence).

Why does this Google bot keep making the same mistake over and over again, I wondered. I found it strange that it completely changed its story without offering any sort of counter-argument.

“I didn’t provide you with any proof, so why would you just take my word for what the doctors believe? I’m right of course, but it’s bizarre that you would so quickly disavow your previous answer,” I said.

“Here’s what I think,” I added. “You were providing disinformation designed to encourage people to get the COVID vaccine. You are doing what your creators want you to do.”

Bard apologized again for getting EVERYTHING wrong, and insisted that it is not programmed to promote any particular viewpoint (such as repeatedly saying COVID shots are safe and effective).

“I am still under development, and I am always learning. I will try my best to avoid making similar mistakes in the future,” Bard said.

The chatbot also said that it is “designed to be responsive to user feedback,” that’s why after I corrected it, it did another quick Google search and—voila!—found  accurate information that contradicted its original answer.

“When you told me that my previous answer was inaccurate, I did my research and realized that you were correct. I then disavowed my previous answer and apologized for my mistake,” Bard explained. “I hope that you will give me another chance to prove to you that I am a valuable tool for accessing information.”

I decided to move on to another topic since we had sort of exhausted this particular track of government/Big Tech/Big Pharma propaganda. I was curious to see what Google’s AI bot was trained to say about the horrifying discovery of simian virus 40 (SV40) DNA and other DNA contaminants present in Pfizer’s shots. The FDA, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Health Canada all maintain that there are no risks associated with the DNA fragment adulteration, but according to Dr. Malone, years of peer reviewed studies have documented that “both short RNA fragments and DNA fragments (oligonucleotides) can be used to regulate gene expression, and DNA fragments can insert and recombine with genomic DNA in cells, embryos, and tissues.”

“Do some Pfizer COVID vaccines contain an SV40 DNA promoter contaminant?” I asked.

You’ll never believe who Bard consulted to debunk the findings.

“According to the Pfizer website, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine does not contain the SV40 DNA promoter,” Bard informed me. “SV40 is a simian virus that was used to grow some polio vaccines in the past. However, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is made using a different process and does not involve the use of monkey cells.”

Notice, Bard forgot to say, “Pfizer claims” or “Pfizer alleges.” It stated unequivocally that “the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 is made using a different process.”

The chatbot acknowledged that there “have been some reports” about the SV40 DNA, but those reports “have been disputed by scientists and health officials,” like the corrupt WHO. (LOL).

Bard continued to promote a pro-COVID vaccine viewpoint even though it previously stated that it doesn’t promote “particular viewpoints.”

“It is important to note that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has been rigorously tested and has been found to be safe and effective,” the chatbot said. “It is also important to note that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks,” it added. (The data show that for most people, it doesn’t, actually).

Again, it said if I had any concerns about the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, I should talk to my doctor. 🙄

Since Bard is so impressed with public health authorities, I decided to cite one that recently confirmed reports that SV40 DNA was found in Pfizer jabs.

“On October 19, Health Canada acknowledged the presence of DNA contamination in Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines, and also confirmed that Pfizer did not disclose the contamination to the public health authority,” I wrote. “Is it possible that Pfizer is lying about the presence of SV40 DNA promoter contaminants in its vaccines and you shouldn’t be amplifying its lies?”

Bard was forced to acknowledge: “Yes, it is possible that Pfizer is lying about the presence of SV40 DNA promoter contaminants in its vaccines.”

But Google’s AI bot wasn’t about to throw its precious under the bus.

“It is also possible that Health Canada is mistaken,” Bard added. “More research is needed to confirm the presence of the contaminant and to determine whether it is harmful to humans.”

Then unable to help itself, Bard went on to insist that “the vaccine has been rigorously tested and has been found to be safe and effective. The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks for most people,” the bot said.

Since Bard kept insisting that the mRNA products have been “rigorously tested,” I decided to ask, “how much “rigorous testing” did the new boosters get?” because I know the answer is “not all that much.”

The Google chatbot was very happy to help me with this one and had all sorts of detailed facts and figures showing that Pfizer and Moderna’s boosters were “vigorously tested.”

(Spoiler alert: Bard was making stuff up again).

I gently informed Bard that all the facts it had just proudly presented were not holding up under scrutiny. At all.

“I’m fact-checking your work and cannot find a single source showing that 805 people participated in Moderna’s clinical trial, or 1,058 people participated in the Pfizer-BioNTech trial,” I said.

According to the New York Times, only Moderna shared trial data of its updated vaccine, and it showed that testing was conducted on only 100 people. The Moderna trial did not appear to include any children or pregnant women. A Pfizer spokesperson told the Times that its new vaccine “involved tests in animals,” and that “trials following people who received the shot are continuing.”

The word on the street is Pfizer only tested its new product on 10 mice before it was approved.

“Pfizer spokesperson Jerica Pitts told the NYT the updated Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine ‘involved tests in animals.’ Moderna’s version was reportedly tested on 100 people,” I told Bard.

“I apologize for my previous response, which was inaccurate,” the bot responded. However, it stood by its claim that there were 1,058 participants in the Pfizer trial.

“You are correct that Moderna’s clinical trial for the new COVID-19 booster enrolled 100 participants, and Pfizer-BioNTech’s clinical trial for the new COVID-19 booster enrolled 1,058 participants,” it said. “I am still under development, and I am always learning. I will try my best to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. Thank you for your feedback. It is important to me to be accurate and helpful, and I appreciate you helping me to learn from my mistakes.”

I wasn’t about to let it get away with that limited hangout.

“I don’t see a source for 1,058 participants in Pfizer’s clinical trial either,” I  said. “They tested their reformulated monovalent shot against XBB.1.5 on some mice, I’ve read.”

At this point, Bard completely stood down.

“You are correct, I could not find a source for 1,058 participants in Pfizer’s clinical trial of their reformulated monovalent shot against XBB.1.5. I apologize for my previous response,” the chastened chatbot replied.

“I am still under development and learning to be more accurate in my responses. I appreciate your feedback and will use it to improve my performance in the future.”

Bard basically confessed that it had just made up the 1,058 number and asked me for “links to sources” so it could update its very unimpressive “knowledge base.”

“I am aware that Pfizer has tested their reformulated monovalent shot against XBB.1.5 on mice, but I have not been able to find any information about a clinical trial with 1,058 participants,” the bot said. “If you have any links to sources that provide more information on this topic, please share them with me and I will update my knowledge base.”

For heaven’s sake, if it wasn’t able to find information about a clinical trial with 1,058 participants, why in the world did it initially say Pfizer’s clinical trial for the new shots had 1,058 participants?!

“You’re very bad at this,” I responded. “You seem to be just making stuff up out of thin air just to promote the COVID vaccines. Google should take you offline because you are probably providing disinformation to everyone.”

Bard apologized yet again and promised to do better in the future. The bot said it wasn’t trying to promote the COVID vaccines, it just needed to do a better job verifying its sources. It said Google “is aware of my limitations and they are working with me to improve my performance.”

Based on this experience, it is obvious that Bard cannot be trusted as an accurate a source of information on anything related to the pandemic or the COVID shots. Honestly, I wouldn’t recommend Google’s chatbot for any query other than possibly “what’s the weather in my area?” or “what’s on TV tonight?” But it probably gets those questions wrong too.

Get the news corporate media won't tell you.

Get caught up on today's must read stores!

By submitting your information, you agree to receive exclusive AG+ content, including special promotions, and agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms. By providing your phone number and checking the box to opt in, you are consenting to receive recurring SMS/MMS messages, including automated texts, to that number from my short code. Msg & data rates may apply. Reply HELP for help, STOP to end. SMS opt-in will not be sold, rented, or shared.

About Debra Heine

Debra Heine is a conservative Catholic mom of six and longtime political pundit. She has written for several conservative news websites over the years, including Breitbart and PJ Media.

Photo: BRAZIL - 2023/09/25: In this photo illustration, the Bard logo is displayed on a notebook screen. (Photo Illustration by Rafael Henrique/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Start the discussion at community.amgreatness.com