A big article talks about new things happening with AI, which are smart computer programs that can do tasks like talking and learning. Some of the topics are about Google's new chatbot called Bard, what kind of school education is important for tech jobs, and a famous singer named Elvis who is using AI to sing again. People are excited about these updates and want to see how AI will grow in the future. Read from source...

- The article is poorly written and lacks coherence. It jumps from one topic to another without providing any meaningful connection or context. For example, it mentions Google Bard's wishlist, IBM's take on tech degrees, Elvis Presley returns with AI, and the top AI updates this week, but does not explain how they are related or why they are important.
- The article uses vague and subjective terms such as "eventful", "insightful", "tidbits", and "top" without providing any evidence or criteria to support them. These words imply a positive or favorable bias towards the AI developments, but do not justify them with facts or logic.
- The article does not provide any sources or references for its claims or statements. For example, it says that Google Bard has seen a stream of updates since its launch in February 2023, but does not mention where this information came from or how reliable it is. This makes the article untrustworthy and unreliable as a source of information on AI updates.
- The article relies heavily on opinion and speculation rather than facts and data. For example, it says that users want Google Bard to "toning down censorship" without providing any evidence or survey results to back up this claim. It also assumes that giving the chatbot more personality will make it better, without considering other possible factors such as accuracy, efficiency, or security.
- The article is emotionally biased and shows a lack of objectivity and professionalism. For example, it says that Elvis Presley returns with AI, which is clearly a sensationalized and exaggerated headline meant to attract attention and curiosity, but has no relevance or substance to the topic of AI updates. It also uses words like "amazing", "fantastic", and "incredible" without any justification or context, which suggests that the author is either excited or overly enthusiastic about the AI developments, but not objective or critical.

Overall, the article is a poor example of journalism and reporting on AI updates, as it lacks clarity, credibility, accuracy, and objectivity. It does not provide any useful information or insights for readers who want to learn more about the current state and future prospects of artificial intelligence.