Why does the media get to decide whether Google's chatbot is good?

Why do journalists get to decide which video games and TV shows are good? Shouldn't we have literary experts and analysts breaking down what is actually the greatest content?

Journalists just report on stuff, and people read it. There is honest, objective journalism about AI but nobody reads it. If it doesn't mention Skynet or a singularity, the layman cannot be bothered to click through. And why blame them? Data is boring, fiction is fun.

AI experts aren't the only people or even the best people to consult on questions like this, and they have a bias. The right questions to ask are, what is the intended purpose of Google's chatbot and how well does it do, based in independent testing. If Google's chatbot is shown in a demo to produce embarrassing mistakes, that's news and it's going to get reported.

See https://arxiv.org/search/?query=chatgpt&searchtype=all&sourc...

I think a large amount of public opinion right now is that people can actually play with ChatGPT and Bing and walk away impressed. I haven’t seen anyone claim it is perfect or error free, just that it’s incredibly fun and occasionally useful. Bard is still not open to the public or to journalists and so all anyone has to go on is a few screenshots. There’s nothing impressive about a screenshot.

If an AI expert not under NDA would like to weigh in, I for one would be very interested in their perspective.

Do you expect editorialists to not opine on the various chatbots?