Google’s Gemini team is apparently sending out emails about an upcoming change to how Gemini interacts with apps on Android devices. The email informs users that, come July 7, 2025, Gemini will be able to “help you use Phone, Messages, WhatsApp, and Utilities on your phone, whether your Gemini Apps Activity is on or off.” Naturally, this has raised some privacy concerns among those who’ve received the email and those using the AI assistant on their Android devices.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    21 hours ago

    If a feature is useful people will use it, be it AI or not AI.

    People will also use it if it’s not useful, if it’s the default.

    A friend of mine did a search the other day to find the hour of something, and google’s AI lied to her. Top of the page, just completely wrong.

    Luckily I said, “That doesn’t sound right” and checked the official site, where we found the truth.

    Google is definitely forcing this out, even when it’s inferior to other products. Hell, it’s inferior to their own, existing product.

    But people will keep using AI, because it’s there, and it’s right most of the time.

    Google sucks. They should be broken up, and their leadership barred from working in tech. We could have had a better future. Instead we have this hallucinatory hellhole.

    • ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      They need a tech ethics board, and people need a license to operate or work in decision-making capacities. Also, anyone above the person’s head making an unethical decision loses their license, too. License should be cheap to prevent monopoly, but you have to have one to handle data. Don’t have a license. Don’t have a company. Plant shitty surveillance without separate, noticeable, succinctly presented agreements that are clear and understandable, with warnings about currently misunderstood uses, then you lose license. First offense.

      Edit: Also mandatory audits with preformulated and separate, and succint notifications are applied. “This company sells your info to the government and police forces. Any private information, even sexual in nature, can be used against you. Your information will be used by several companies to build your complete psychological profile to sell you things you wouldn’t normally purchase and predict crimes you might commit.”

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      How are you evaluating inferior? I like the AI search. It’s my opinion. You have yours.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Well, in this example, the information provided by the AI was simply wrong. If it had done the traditional search method of pointing to the organization’s website where they had the hours listed, it would have worked fine.

        This idea that “we’re all entitled to our opinion” is nonsense. That’s for when you’re a child and the topic is what flavor Jelly Bean you like. It’s not for like policy or things that matter. You can’t just “it’s my opinion” your way through “this algorithm is O(n^2) but I like it better than O(n) so I’m going to use it for my big website”. Or more on topic, you can’t use it for “these results are wrong but I like them better”

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Traditional search often is also wrong, showing some 3rd party website or a link farm.

          With AI search I get a summary AND the result list, so I have more info to make a decision.

          • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Well, yes, Google has been becoming shittier for years as they prioritize ads and fail to deal with SEO slop. You have to know what’s a good source, but that was true even when we were doing research in libraries.

            The AI summary is making the problem worse. The information it provides is not trustworthy. It also deprives site owners from traffic. It’s really bad on like every metric.

            • Tja@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              The AI summary is additive, I don’t see how it makes it worse. I find it useful to save time and it’s right in most cases, if I need something of vital importance (like the opening time for a shop) I don’t use search results anyway, I go to maps where I expect to find a link to their official website (not trusting the opening hours on maps either).

              • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                I don’t think it saves time on net if you have to read it and then go verify it anyway. Might as well go directly to the more trustworthy source in the first place! And if you don’t care if your answer is correct, why even search? Just make something up.

                • Tja@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  It’s just more convenient. I’m not usually Googling if a mushroom is poisonous, I’m Googling how to get the length of an array in python or something similar. If it doesn’t work, I come back and look at the second result, which happens less than once a week.