The goal of expert testimony is not to find the best technical solution. The goal is to adjudicate a dispute. So yes, objective qualifications trump subjective ones, and that shouldn't be surprising or disappointing.
All of the qualifications you list amount to subjective evidence of clout in an obscure (to non-programmers) programming clique.
On the other hand, the certificate from a Blockchain University probably had a well defined curriculum and criteria for passing.
Yeah, the junior dev analogy misses on the core capabilities. The ability to spit out syntactically correct blocks of code in a second or two is a massive win, even if it requires careful review.
Startup founders who cash in, join Google, and are unpleasantly surprised to find that they are now just another middle manager who founded some startup nobody's heard of or cares about.
The empathy for the customer doesn't exactly ooze from the essay ("at the expiry of my three year mandatory retention period" == "now that I am all paid up").
Part one of the fix is vague management cliches, high minded mission statements and war metaphors. I seriously doubt Google lacks these.
And the fix for endless middle manager meddling? Endless reorgs? "Winnow the layers of middle management" (read: reorgs), and mandate that customers, support staff, and managers all waste their time on a weekly heart to heart (you'll note that the author doesn't mention going through the exercise himself).
Why should Google risk their brand reputation in this way? The majority of their users probably have never heard of ChatGPT. They just know Google as the thing that gives them factual information. Google have something to lose by directing their enormous user base to a buggy ChatGPT clone.
Bing isn't unpopular, it's just a non-entity. They don't have any brand value to harm.
> that can quickly be iterated on.
It's pretty dubious to assume problems with this tech can be fixed on a short time scale