There are a lot of things reasonable people would use AI for. This is not one of them. This is a crazy idea. Just plain bonkers. No sense to be found. "Oh, you want to see what's at that location? How about we make something up for you?"
They could've done a lot more interesting things with AI in Google Earth though. Think planning a travel itinerary, or plaintext search of a POI.
I was just using Earth to plan an irrigation setup in my backyard, would've been damn nice to have MCP there to generate paths and circular regions illustrating coverage.
What I find interesting - and seems absolutely logic for such a large company - that it's fine for a group of people to work on something tha is clearly to fail from Day 1, and it just seems to be ok.
I didn't use the feature, so I don't know if it was capable of this, but the thing you describe sounds potentially useful for land developers or folks trying to conceptualize buildings/city-development.
the people who make those stupid renders of yet-to-be-built strip malls filled with people and live bands that they use to sell development plans to city commerce groups.
Does this move us closer to needing registries of authentic images? (White-listing? Only a partial solution.)
Google's response today, in addition to removing nano banana from Earth, was that people should just use Google's synthID(?) AI detection app, to determine if this is a blacklisted (effectively) image.
Of course that's impractical because a million people could quickly receive the image .. the image would make an impression on them before detection. And, this would also mean that Google's AI detection software needs to be ran by every human for every image that they view, in order to determine if it's valid. So, let's say that's 100 images, so that's a 100 to the millionth power? (Did I really get a CS degree?) I think it's just 100 million visits to Google synthID tool.. lol.
If we go with a white listing approach then we know that we should trust the image. If we go with a blacklisting approach then we only know that we should not trust the image, which we already knew before we ran the tool....
Watermarking is for fools. Those doing the generation and watermarking will control what is perceived as false or true. Watermarks have historically been about proof of ownership or origin. Watermarking fake creations works in reverse, all of a sudden what's void of watermarking is true, but those that control the watermarking can either add them to truths to turn them into fakes or skip watermarking for certain people or organizations, making their fake creations become truths.
I've toyed with the idea of issuing LTE IMEI-like identity numbers for digital cameras (and a LTE IMSI/SIM-like identity number to identify a paying accountholder who wishes to subscribe to an image-creator attestation service).
Each photograph would attach cryptographically-verifiable metadata attesting to both the identity of the camera and the person who owns it. (Say, m="Camera 123 owned by subscriber 456 created a raw 20MP image with sha 0xdeadbeef... at time 2026-01-23 4:56pm" countersigned by both the device and subscriber keys).
Image compression would be an immediate issue. Key lifetime management would be another major issue, as would key revocation behavior. Device manufacturers would take time to buy in and phase in hardware support. Consumers would object to yet another subscription service. Privacy and freedom-of-the-press advocates would probably have something to say about establishing a norm where we doubt the legitimacy of any digital images that refuse to "out" their creator.
And other than those pesky little non-starters, I've yet to find anything wrong with it :'-)
I also think we need to consider modulating the meaning .. eg This camera is owned by XYZ person ... Since I think it could be a much more short term ownership.
Ie if I take one of these photographs and then register the media with my identity / private keys then I can assert This Is Mine.
Every media output before and after that from this camera is only circumstantially related to me.
Various digital cameras already support in-camera crypto-signatures created by the sensor package iirc, it’s just not the sort of thing you find in typical consumer hardware. Look into forensics specialty gear perhaps?
Even the Microsoft Kin lasted 48 days (I thought it had been cancelled on launch day, but digging back it was just the tech press saying "This was a mistake from Day One" which is certainly true, but not the same thing :-)
It doesn't. Whoever is above the Nano Banana 2 team at Google is pushing some agenda that forcibly integrates their AI slop image generator into other teams' products.
> Tonight I typed just one sentence into Google Earth and put refugees near the Mexican border. Then I planted a nuclear plant in Iran. What on earth is Google doing? Check my latest post here:
We're back to nerfing Google's products because "safety". Yes, you can obviously do this stuff, like you can obviously use Excel to open up a financial statement, change some numbers and tweet about it.
The obvious answer, and I believe it's already being utilized, is watermarks. There's been a lot of research in creating imperceptible, unremovable fingerprints from the generated image. Think very subtle statistical patterns in the generated pixels.
Instead we're going to get some long prompt about how not to do bad things that steps all over the user's intent.
Unless the watermark is a giant “This is fake” diagonally across the center of the image, everything will get shared virally in the 3 second attention span of doomscrolling without a second look.
We already have open source image editing models, so how is this Google fault? This is UGC..
If I type something nefarious in Google search bar and then share that screenshot, is Google to blame for not even refusing rendering that text inside the input field?
That's a separate issue - of course it's only so that someone at google can tick a box "I've shipped an AI feature" to get promoted.
But we didn't gain any new ability to produce fake images, fake images can already be produced easily, even those that pretend they're from Google Earth. This was already possible, so I don't understand the concern here..
Are tech companies now responsible for everything the user does? That would end with total enslavement, don't go in that direction.
It could be used for "good things" too, as you could see in their promo post.
If I make a text editor, am I now responsible if someone uses it to write Mein Kampf? Back then people didn't complain that a notepad doesn't censor user input, but if we continue with your logic, we'll be surveiled constantly, I don't want that dystopian future to become reality.
instead of making potentially weak comparisons, could we consider why this feature was implemented in the first place? image editing models exist for good reason - I struggle to see a clear “why” for this product other than to cram generative content in yet another existing product.
When they talk about everybody losing their jobs, that doesn’t bother them one bit. In fact, they seem to be truly happy when they talk about that. But this, Oh No!
Maybe LLMs will be the final nail in the coffin for putting every little ounce of every little article behind an annoying paywall.
A world model that ingests data in real-time from every flock camera, every iPhone, and every Rayban meta spy glasses won't have any need for journalists.
Is allowing a man to generate corn circles to send conspiracy theorists on a wild goose chase through the UK for the weekend really too much to ask for?
There are a lot of things reasonable people would use AI for. This is not one of them. This is a crazy idea. Just plain bonkers. No sense to be found. "Oh, you want to see what's at that location? How about we make something up for you?"
Yeah this has “PM trying to put an AI release on their promo packet” written all over it.
They could've done a lot more interesting things with AI in Google Earth though. Think planning a travel itinerary, or plaintext search of a POI.
I was just using Earth to plan an irrigation setup in my backyard, would've been damn nice to have MCP there to generate paths and circular regions illustrating coverage.
What I find interesting - and seems absolutely logic for such a large company - that it's fine for a group of people to work on something tha is clearly to fail from Day 1, and it just seems to be ok.
I didn't use the feature, so I don't know if it was capable of this, but the thing you describe sounds potentially useful for land developers or folks trying to conceptualize buildings/city-development.
the people who make those stupid renders of yet-to-be-built strip malls filled with people and live bands that they use to sell development plans to city commerce groups.
Does this move us closer to needing registries of authentic images? (White-listing? Only a partial solution.)
Google's response today, in addition to removing nano banana from Earth, was that people should just use Google's synthID(?) AI detection app, to determine if this is a blacklisted (effectively) image.
Of course that's impractical because a million people could quickly receive the image .. the image would make an impression on them before detection. And, this would also mean that Google's AI detection software needs to be ran by every human for every image that they view, in order to determine if it's valid. So, let's say that's 100 images, so that's a 100 to the millionth power? (Did I really get a CS degree?) I think it's just 100 million visits to Google synthID tool.. lol.
If we go with a white listing approach then we know that we should trust the image. If we go with a blacklisting approach then we only know that we should not trust the image, which we already knew before we ran the tool....
- https://www.digitaldigging.org/p/how-to-plant-a-nuclear-plan... original article is more interesting, also linked in above main article
Watermarking is for fools. Those doing the generation and watermarking will control what is perceived as false or true. Watermarks have historically been about proof of ownership or origin. Watermarking fake creations works in reverse, all of a sudden what's void of watermarking is true, but those that control the watermarking can either add them to truths to turn them into fakes or skip watermarking for certain people or organizations, making their fake creations become truths.
I've toyed with the idea of issuing LTE IMEI-like identity numbers for digital cameras (and a LTE IMSI/SIM-like identity number to identify a paying accountholder who wishes to subscribe to an image-creator attestation service).
Each photograph would attach cryptographically-verifiable metadata attesting to both the identity of the camera and the person who owns it. (Say, m="Camera 123 owned by subscriber 456 created a raw 20MP image with sha 0xdeadbeef... at time 2026-01-23 4:56pm" countersigned by both the device and subscriber keys).
Image compression would be an immediate issue. Key lifetime management would be another major issue, as would key revocation behavior. Device manufacturers would take time to buy in and phase in hardware support. Consumers would object to yet another subscription service. Privacy and freedom-of-the-press advocates would probably have something to say about establishing a norm where we doubt the legitimacy of any digital images that refuse to "out" their creator.
And other than those pesky little non-starters, I've yet to find anything wrong with it :'-)
(see also: Schneier's Law)
Relevant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Credentials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Authenticity_Initiativ...
Nice.
I see this as A stepping stone to personal digital identity.
Very nice. I think this is important work.
I also think we need to consider modulating the meaning .. eg This camera is owned by XYZ person ... Since I think it could be a much more short term ownership.
Ie if I take one of these photographs and then register the media with my identity / private keys then I can assert This Is Mine.
Every media output before and after that from this camera is only circumstantially related to me.
Various digital cameras already support in-camera crypto-signatures created by the sensor package iirc, it’s just not the sort of thing you find in typical consumer hardware. Look into forensics specialty gear perhaps?
A bad actor takes your camera with all your crypto identity and shoots some illegal pictures or pictures of pictures.
Straight to jail.
The proof is of unmodification, not of handler; for that, you want a second sensor in the eyepiece.
Yes, exactly.
Is this the fastest Google has killed one of its own products (features)?
They have announced a mobile app for AI Studio but now they removed it before it even launched so... ;) https://9to5google.com/2026/07/31/gemini-ai-studio-app/
Even the Microsoft Kin lasted 48 days (I thought it had been cancelled on launch day, but digging back it was just the tech press saying "This was a mistake from Day One" which is certainly true, but not the same thing :-)
Tay lasted 16 hours. Depending on how long Nano banana was live here (unclear from the article) it might have been shorter.
Why does Google Earth need anything remotely related to AI image gen?
A Product Manager in some AI-adjacent department needs a promotion.
"Google career progression: shipped a feature this quarter [x]"...
Ah, box-ticking your way to oblivion...
It doesn't. Whoever is above the Nano Banana 2 team at Google is pushing some agenda that forcibly integrates their AI slop image generator into other teams' products.
Related earlier:
Google Earth's New AI Lets Anyone Fabricate Satellite Images
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49124898
> Tonight I typed just one sentence into Google Earth and put refugees near the Mexican border. Then I planted a nuclear plant in Iran. What on earth is Google doing? Check my latest post here:
We're back to nerfing Google's products because "safety". Yes, you can obviously do this stuff, like you can obviously use Excel to open up a financial statement, change some numbers and tweet about it.
The obvious answer, and I believe it's already being utilized, is watermarks. There's been a lot of research in creating imperceptible, unremovable fingerprints from the generated image. Think very subtle statistical patterns in the generated pixels.
Instead we're going to get some long prompt about how not to do bad things that steps all over the user's intent.
https://x.com/henkvaness/status/2082912544394498228?s=20
Unless the watermark is a giant “This is fake” diagonally across the center of the image, everything will get shared virally in the 3 second attention span of doomscrolling without a second look.
We already have open source image editing models, so how is this Google fault? This is UGC..
If I type something nefarious in Google search bar and then share that screenshot, is Google to blame for not even refusing rendering that text inside the input field?
What is an AI image generator inside Google Earth useful for if not generating believable but fake images that look like they’re from Google Earth?
That's a separate issue - of course it's only so that someone at google can tick a box "I've shipped an AI feature" to get promoted.
But we didn't gain any new ability to produce fake images, fake images can already be produced easily, even those that pretend they're from Google Earth. This was already possible, so I don't understand the concern here..
Are tech companies now responsible for everything the user does? That would end with total enslavement, don't go in that direction.
tech companies are responsible for the products they ship, aren’t they? a company shouldn’t release something that could only be used for Bad Things
So you want to ban guns? Good and bad quickly become subjective, depending on how you view their use in different scenarios.
It could be used for "good things" too, as you could see in their promo post.
If I make a text editor, am I now responsible if someone uses it to write Mein Kampf? Back then people didn't complain that a notepad doesn't censor user input, but if we continue with your logic, we'll be surveiled constantly, I don't want that dystopian future to become reality.
instead of making potentially weak comparisons, could we consider why this feature was implemented in the first place? image editing models exist for good reason - I struggle to see a clear “why” for this product other than to cram generative content in yet another existing product.
When they talk about everybody losing their jobs, that doesn’t bother them one bit. In fact, they seem to be truly happy when they talk about that. But this, Oh No!
I can't wait for nano banana on pathology images.
"Trusted view of the world" but you could make bomb craters in Gaza. SynthID watermark doesn't fix that.
Censorship is now being called `guardrails`.
Maybe LLMs will be the final nail in the coffin for putting every little ounce of every little article behind an annoying paywall.
A world model that ingests data in real-time from every flock camera, every iPhone, and every Rayban meta spy glasses won't have any need for journalists.
A man cannot have fun any more these days.
Is allowing a man to generate corn circles to send conspiracy theorists on a wild goose chase through the UK for the weekend really too much to ask for?