Top
Best
New

Posted by ceejayoz 6 hours ago

Google will turn off search for schools that reject AI(www.nytimes.com)
https://archive.ph/RuwsB

https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/educatio...

398 points | 300 commentspage 6
elmcrest 5 hours ago|
so what? there are alternatives... and who still googles nowadays anyways :)
lirolero 5 hours ago|
[dead]
padge01 4 hours ago||
win-win
starkeeper 4 hours ago||
It's like the signed the "Let's be as evil as possible" pledge around 2016 isn't it. It's not just enshitification, it is evilshitification.
lestertomlin 4 hours ago||
Google gets worse and worse every year.
verdverm 4 hours ago|
Founders stopped running it, same story as IBM
jsrozner 4 hours ago||
This is absolutely not why google is worse. Larry, Sergey, and Sundar want more money and more money for them means a shittier product for users.
djoldman 5 hours ago||
As usual, the truth is a little less clickbaity. It's just opt-in:

https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/educatio...

> We believe schools should have control over AI in their classrooms and in providing administrators with controls to help them manage their approach. After listening to schools, teachers, leading researchers, and policymakers, we are now updating our approach to controls for Gemini, Gemini Notebook, Gemini in Classroom, and Google Search. Access to these products will be entirely off for K-12 student accounts until school administrators explicitly turn them on.

6thbit 5 hours ago||
Google blog says search will be off by default, alongside Gemini stuff.

And NYT says they would only be able to turn search on if they enable all of the Gemini stuff. That is not mentioned explicitly on google's blog. So not _that_ clickbaity?

kccqzy 5 hours ago|||
> … and Google Search. Access to these products will be entirely off for K-12 student accounts until school administrators explicitly turn them on.

So yeah the blog post says Google Search itself will be entirely off until being turned on. There’s nothing in this blog post to indicate whether Google Search can be turned on without also turning on Gemini. Although I hate the NYT, the NYT is quoting someone from Google saying there won’t be separate controls for Gemini and Google Search.

dan_thinks 5 hours ago|||
From the article, Google AI is deeply integrated with Google Search. So the article is correct - turning off one turns off the other.

From a privacy perspective, having all of this off by default is sensible. But only offering a basic product like Search if you opt into AI (when search as a capability does not need AI to function) - is newsworthy.

skeledrew 4 hours ago||
> when search as a capability does not need AI to function

That means a far less capable search engine. Note that Google search has been AI-powered since before AI became a thing; it's now just more advanced, and particularly, explicitly publicized.

shostack 5 hours ago|||
Does Google tie Gemini access for schools to their ability to train on the data and use it for ads and measurement like they have done to Android if you want to do anything halfway useful you used to do with Assistant before they killed it?
ceejayoz 5 hours ago|||
> A.I. features are now a standard part of Google’s commercially available search engine. “Search and A.I. are deeply integrated,” said Chris Phillips, vice president for education at Google. If a school has banned A.I., he added, students “will not have access to search, and they’ll see a message from their school that indicates it’s not available.”

C'mon, it's right in the article.

The school can control AI on/off. Off means no search too.

skeledrew 4 hours ago||
Well their search engine is explicitly AI-driven; no AI, no search. Like you can't have juice that doesn't contain water.
ceejayoz 4 hours ago||
> Like you can't have juice that doesn't contain water.

This particular bit of juice didn't have the "AI summaries" ingredient for 93% of its existence.

Schools invested enormously in Google Classroom and Google for Education, and now the deal's changing. Not for the benefit of students.

skeledrew 4 hours ago||
The water supply got an update. Reservoir instead of wells. There may be a difference in taste but you'll get used to it. Or learn to dig a well.
ceejayoz 4 hours ago||
That's more honest, but quite the goalpost move.

The local population is probably allowed to complain that you built the reservoir with toxic waste, too, or that you filled the old well with construction debris.

skeledrew 2 hours ago||
It's not a goalpost move though, as there was never a guarantee to remain on well water.

But anyway I personally would find someone offering well water if I don't like the reservoir. And I've been using DuckDuckGo exclusively for search since they first appeared, so I've never had to deal with what Google's doing. I know the reservoir exists, but I've never drank from it.

john_strinlai 5 hours ago|||
the problem is that it's bundled.

you either get search + all the ai stuff, or you get none of it. you can't just opt-in to search alone.

(in other words, title is accurate. block ai = no search)

insane_dreamer 2 hours ago||
the truth is not what you think is the truth

Search is off; if you want it back on, you get Gemini summaries with it. you can't get Search _without_ Gemini

Scummy wording makes it looks like google is giving more control, but it's really the opposite.

Catloafdev 5 hours ago||
[flagged]
gdulli 4 hours ago||
I guess it was effectively phrased in the second person.
krunck 5 hours ago||
"Don't" isn't all that far, it's just one word.
vaibhavarduino 5 hours ago||
For free users: https://archive.is/20261103145613/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
HelloMcFly 4 hours ago||
The changed title on this post is problematic.
ceejayoz 4 hours ago||
I'm not a fan of "by ceejayoz" on a link and title I never even submitted, yeah.

edit: Looks like it was undone. Thank you, whoever that was.

jeltz 4 hours ago||
The changed link is even more problematic.
krunck 5 hours ago||
https://archive.ph/RuwsB
ceejayoz 5 hours ago|
I really don't like that my original submission "Google Will Turn Off Search for Schools That Reject A.I." from the New York Times got replaced with "Designing responsible AI for learning" PR slop from Google Corporate that doesn't even disclose this limitation.

If the mods are gonna Orwell this, at least take my name off it.

edit: Thanks, mods, for putting it back.

jeltz 4 hours ago|||
Yeah, that is not ok at all. Flagged this post.
water-data-dude 4 hours ago||
Yeah, that's disturbing behavior. Maybe I've been living under a rock, but I kinda assumed the mod team wouldn't blatantly whitewash like this
tomhow 4 hours ago|||
We were just applying the guidelines policy:

Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.

The exception to this this where a source contains significant additional information that is not in the original source, which, as commenters have pointed out, seems to be true in this case.

ceejayoz 4 hours ago||
> The exception to this this where a source contains significant additional information that is not in the original source…

This will virtually always be the case of a reputable news article about a PR announcement written by a corporate marketing department of this nature.

Example, currently #2 on the home page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50336918 would need to be changed to https://www.fujifilm.com/me/en/news/hq/14137.

I would also note the same guideline says to use the original title, which was (and remains, as submitted) "Google Will Turn Off Search for Schools That Reject A.I."

ok_dad 4 hours ago|||
They are constantly tipping the scales here, and if you say so everyone will show up and claim they're the best mod team on the planet and totally fair and it's outrageous that you want to see accountability for mod actions via some sort of mod log and the mods will say that a mod log will allow some sort of bad actors to do something vague and threatening and they'll also use rules like a cudgel and claim a technical reading of some rule will absolve them. Then again, we are on a site run by a VC so what would you expect, of course they're going to tip the scales.
More comments...