google earth pulls

Google Earth pulls back new AI tool after warnings about generated deepfakes

MANILA, Philippines – Google pulled back its new AI image tool, Nano Banana 2, on Saturday, August 1, after warnings about the potential for the tool to create deepfakes of topographic imagery, and that some users had already gone against the company’s policies on the use of the tool.

Google Earth’s Nano Banana feature, released on July 30, was an AI tool meant to allow users to “generate custom images using Google Earth’s satellite, aerial, and 3D imagery alongside Nano Banana, which creates concepts grounded in the real world.”

It was originally envisioned to help bring historical sites to life, or aid in the creation of real estate plans, among other potentially beneficial implementations.

A BBC report, however, pointed to the risks inherent in allowing AI to generate things over topographical images.

These include creating images that would serve as disinformation by generating deepfakes of things or structures that did not exist in a given location, such as sinkholes where there were none or missile craters atop of publicly known locations.

Before the pause of Nano Banana on Gogole Earth, the BBC said AI and misinformation expert Henk van Ess highlighted such risks. Said the BBC, “he created fake images of a non-existent nuclear power plant in Iran, a refugee camp on the US-Mexico border and a fake hospital in Gaza with a bomb crater next to it.”

Van Ess added that Google had “invented” images that could be “welded to genuine coordinates, drawn on genuine imagery.”

Google announced on August 1, Manila time, that it was pausing the Nano Banana feature to improve the safeguards against abuse.

Google’s full statement read, “We know that people uniquely trust Google Earth for a reliable view of the world. We’ve seen geospatial professionals using this feature for a range of useful purposes, however we’ve also seen people sharing screenshots of generated imagery that appear to violate our policies. So we’re rolling back this feature in Google Earth while we work on implementing stronger guardrails.”.

While these generated images did not appear in the main Google Earth experience and were watermarked, further external alterations could make Nano Banana-enabled deepfakes a problem granted Google’s blessing inadvertently. – Rappler.com

Similar Posts

  • | |

    Shakespeare’s sorcery and silicon valley

    For over four centuries, William Shakespeare’s plays have served for understanding human nature, politics, psychology, and empire. Yet, as scholars Xin Chen Chai and Xin Ying Lim argue, his work offers surprising insights into a decidedly modern phenomenon. The hidden human and physical infrastructure driving artificial intelligence. When millions of users enter prompts into generative AI chatbots every day, the experience feels weightless, instantaneous and virtual. However, behind every generated sentence lies a physical network of high-powered data centers. These facilities consume massive volumes of electricity and millions of gallons of water to cool servers. This illusion of effortless command reflects the dynamic in Shakespeare’s The Tempest. In the play, the exiled duke Prospero rules a remote island through sorcery. He forces the spirit Ariel and the native inhabitant Caliban into servitude. Prospero’s magical feats appear grand and detached from the labor and coercion required to maintain his power. Modern AI systems operate on a similar logic. The seamless magic of AI algorithms obscures the extractive resource demands and physical labor that sustain them. Prospero’s dominance depended on usurping Caliban’s land and subjugating its inhabitants. Similarly, the expansion of tech infrastructure often targets marginalized or rural territories. The reasons are land and natural resources that can be acquired with minimal resistance. A real-world example unfolded within the Mvskoke Nation in Oklahoma. A proposed legislative bill, NCA 25-077, sought to establish the Mvskoke Technology and Innovation Park. The bill was put on the table to bring major data centers to tribal lands. However, Indigenous citizens, including Jordan Harmon and Mackenzie Roberts, showed strong opposition. They highlighted the facilities’ ravenous water and energy consumption. They raised concerns regarding digital surveillance.  Framing the development as a continuation of historical colonial exploitation. Due to community pressure and concerns, the tribal council ultimately rejected the proposal. Postcolonial scholars have long viewed The Tempest as a critique of colonial dynamics. They have  drawn direct parallels between Prospero’s rule and imperial subjugation. In the play, Prospero surrenders his magical powers only after securing his own political goals. It demonstrates that rulers rarely give up power purely out of goodwill.   The successful resistance within the Mvskoke Nation highlights an essential difference between literature and real-life action. Unlike Shakespeare’s characters, real communities are actively demanding accountability from corporate giants. Their resistance demonstrates that the unchecked expansion of data centers is not an inevitable trajectory. By pushing back against resource-extractive technology models, Indigenous and local communities are forcing a necessary public conversation about who truly benefits from artificial intelligence and who pays the hidden costs.

  • |

    Google DeepMind exec admits AI extinction risk is “not zero

    Lila Ibrahim, Google DeepMind’s Chief AI Readiness Officer, will not put a number on the odds of AI wiping out humanity. She is not dismissing the possibility either. Speaking to Fortune, she said the risk is “not zero,” admitting that anything more specific would just be guesswork on her part. Ibrahim was among those who signed the Center for AI Safety’s 2023 statement, alongside co-founders of Anthropic and OpenAI. That statement argued AI extinction risk deserves the same global priority as nuclear war and pandemics. Three years on, she still believes staying silent on existential risk would be irresponsible. She feels this way especially now, given how far the technology has advanced since then. Some of her peers sound even more alarmed. Geoffrey Hinton, often called the “godfather of AI,” estimates a 10% to 20% chance of extinction within the next three decades. Anthropic’s Dario Amodei has gone further, putting the odds of things going “really, really badly” at around 25%. These warnings are not new either. Physicist Stephen Hawking, who used AI tools himself, raised similar concerns long before ChatGPT even existed. Ibrahim compares the situation to the pandemic, pointing out that the worst risks rarely arrive the way people expect. She noted that entire industries failed to properly weigh risk during earlier tech shifts, including the rise of the internet and social media. She is just as sceptical of the optimistic predictions floating around. Elon Musk recently told The Economist that money will stop mattering by 2036, imagining a future of cheap abundance and universal high income once robots take over most jobs. Jeff Bezos has predicted millions of people living in space by 2045. Sam Altman, meanwhile, envisions new job opportunities specifically for graduates working in space. Ibrahim isn’t convinced by either scenario, arguing that AI simply is not developing fast enough to make these predictions realistic anytime soon. Rather than debating far-off futures, Ibrahim says she is more focused on using AI to tackle problems happening right now. She pointed to climate change and industrial pollution as areas where the technology could make a real difference. She was also clear that AI’s benefits should not be limited to a handful of powerful companies. For her, that is just as important as managing the risks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *