Google’s AI features just got more confusing


img-6670-1

The AI Sandbox demo area at Google I/O

Radhika Rajkumar/ZDNET

Follow ZDNET: Add us as a preferred source on Google.


ZDNET’s key takeaways

  • Google’s many new AI features span multiple interfaces.
  • Discreet features took the place of overall upgrades to Gemini.
  • Multiple single-function touchpoints could get confusing.

At this point in the AI race, most AI labs have figured out that the real money lies in enterprise use cases: big, agentic features that significantly impact the way major companies move and work. Google is one of those labs, which could explain why many of the company’s more consumer-forward AI features unveiled at I/O on Tuesday feel somewhat … underwhelming.

Also: Google’s new Omni AI tool will let you video clone yourself – I’m intrigued (and concerned)

Not just that, but they’re oddly disparate across the already multilayered Gemini landscape. This I/O in particular was a chance for Google to make everyday AI appeal to users, especially those skeptical of how hard the company is pushing it. While these new features do offer some conveniences, Google has packaged them in ways that could undermine their relevance and usability.

Many separate Lives

img-6679

Radhika Rajkumar/ZDNET

Google Workspace got a few new AI capabilities at I/O, the main two of which are Docs Live and Gmail Live. And yes, they’re effectively the same functionality.

Like Gemini Live, which lets you use voice to engage with Gemini, Docs Live and Gmail Live let you query each application via voice. 

In a demo, a Google employee used the former to generate a Google doc on her phone, cobbled together from disparate notes, presentations, and other contextual information she rattled off on the fly. To demo the latter, she asked Gmail questions like, “What’s happening at school this week?” Gmail Live scanned her inbox and responded that there was a field trip to prep for.

Also: I compared how Gemini, ChatGPT, and Claude can analyze videos – this model wins

Both features handled more complex follow-up questions about scheduling conflicts and changed topics seemingly without confusing related terms, like “field trip” and “trip to Detroit.” But these are effectively Gemini Live functionality, applied to new apps. Why give them distinct names and silo them to specific places? Why not simply expand Gemini Live integrations?

None of the Google reps I asked on-site could really answer this. 

It’s an odd approach to making Workspace more accessible with AI when, up until now, Google has pretty much been putting Gemini in everything. Regardless of whether you like it or not, it’s a clean, authority-building approach that gives users a one-stop shop for these subtle but convenient AI perks (that is, when they work). Besides, Gemini in Workspace already outfits Gmail, Docs, and Sheets with various capabilities — why not put these under this umbrella, at least?

Also: Your Android phone is getting agentic powers with Gemini Intelligence – here’s how and when

By splicing out near-identical functions into separate features, Google risks confusing or overwhelming the person it needs to convince: the long-term Google customer who’s hesitant about AI or unsure whether it’s relevant to them. That’s much easier to do by saying Gemini sources information for you from several apps via voice than by naming a laundry list of independent product titles.

Google isn’t alone in this: Microsoft has tacked Copilot onto most of its existing products, leaving users to navigate the differences between Copilot Chat, Microsoft 365 Copilot, and other overlapping terms. OpenAI risked similar confusion when it launched ChatGPT Apps, which are just integrations for ChatGPT with other apps — not a new product or app creation platform like the name could suggest. 

What’s more, Docs Live and Gmail Live are rolling out to AI Pro and Ultra subscribers — who pay $20 and at least $100 per month, respectively — and will be in preview for Workspace business users this summer. It’s unclear whether they’ll eventually trickle down to all users or roll into Gemini itself. 

These are quite niche use cases for standalone launches, let alone ones users will need to pay for. Both appear to be available only on mobile, at least for now, focused on making “on the go” tasks more seamless.

A very brief Daily Brief

img-6691

Demo of Daily Brief feature at Google I/O, May 19. 

Radhika Rajkumar/ZDNET

Adapted from an experiment called CC, announced late last year, the new Daily Brief feature sources information from your email, calendar, and other connected apps to give you a rundown of what your day looks like. For those worried about hallucinated meetings, it also includes links to where in your ecosystem it pulled each agenda item from.

I say feature, but Google called Daily Brief “a new agent.” Not to bury us in semantics, but unless I’m missing something, this feature doesn’t strike me as living up to the standard of agent that OpenClaw set this year. 

Also: I tested ChatGPT Plus vs. Gemini Pro to see which is better – and if it’s worth switching

To be fair, Daily Brief does demonstrate some level of deeper reasoning: We haven’t been able to test it ourselves yet, but in two separate demos, it went beyond the present day to flag upcoming charges for later in the week. It also determined that the test user was about to renovate their kitchen, suggesting they set up a temporary cooking station.

But that’s where the “agent” stopped. When I asked whether the feature could take action from any of those items, a Google employee told me a user should just start a chat with Gemini or move into Spark, Google’s new “personal agent” that lives (again, confusingly) inside Gemini.

Not to sound like a brat, but … that’s it?

Also: How Google just revamped Gemini Enterprise for the agentic era – here’s what’s new

A daily briefing is a product of an agent’s summarization work. But is the brief itself an agent? By Google’s definition, I’m not convinced (though hands-on testing may reveal more agentic skills). While reviewing data from your connected apps requires agentic capabilities, Daily Brief is a pretty narrow application of those abilities. 

In the grand scheme of AI expectations, Google is also somewhat late.

“One of the things that OpenClaw is known for is its ability to give you a daily briefing. People also use Claude Cowork for it,” ZDNET contributor David Gewirtz said. “It is certainly not a new capability in the world of AI. People have been talking about daily briefings ever since agents started to become usable.”

Given that context, I have the same question I had about the many Lives: Why not just roll Daily Brief into Gemini as a new (perhaps long-overdue) feature?

AI tools need clarity

Gemini’s various levels of capability are already split across interfaces, separated only by slightly different names. Gemini Intelligence, an Android-specific arm of the agent, launched earlier this month with agentic, multitask capabilities. That’s different from Gemini Personal Intelligence, by the way, which customizes your query responses based on the data you give it access to. 

Then there’s Gemini in Search and the standalone Gemini app.

Also: This powerful Gemini setting made my AI results way more personal and accurate

This setup risks making what Gemini can do so illegible that users simply tune out. Technically speaking, Google might separate each of these Gemini arms based on how they perform across different surfaces: To a developer or product manager, it might make sense to distinguish the Android version of a Gemini product. 

But from a marketing perspective, maybe that doesn’t need to be so visible to the consumer.

Even if AI labs are now following Anthropic’s success and focusing on enterprise, the field of consumer AI tools is still relevant — and crowded. Making it harder for users to keep your products straight probably doesn’t help.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews



Intelligent Investing, a research-driven market analysis platform, works from the premise that artificial intelligence can expand financial forecasting by processing large datasets, accelerating strategy development, and enabling systematic execution. Alongside these capabilities, human interpretation remains essential, providing the context needed to translate data into meaningful market perspectives. 

This philosophy is reflected in the work of founder Arnout Ter Schure. With a PhD in environmental sciences and more than a decade of experience in scientific research, Dr. Ter Schure applies an analytical mindset to financial markets. His transition into market analysis reflects a sustained focus on data and repeatable patterns. Over time, he has developed proprietary indicators and a multi-layered analytical framework that integrates technical, sentiment, and cyclical analysis. This foundation provides important context for his perspective on how AI fits into modern financial decision-making.

Financial markets are becoming more complex and fast‑moving, and that shift has sparked a growing interest in how AI can play a supportive role,” Ter Schure states. “This has opened the door to exploring how computational tools might complement and strengthen traditional analytical approaches.” 

According to a study exploring a multi-agent deep learning approach to big data analysis in financial markets, modern AI systems demonstrate strong capabilities in processing large-scale data and identifying patterns across multiple timeframes. When combined with structured methodologies such as the Elliott Wave principle, these systems can enhance analytical efficiency and improve pattern recognition, particularly in high-speed trading environments.

This growing role of AI aligns with Ter Schure’s view of it as a powerful analytical companion, especially in areas where speed and computational precision are required. He explains, “AI excels when the task is clearly defined. If you provide the structure, the parameters, and the objective, it can execute with remarkable speed and precision.” This may include generating trading algorithms, coding strategies, and conducting rapid backtesting across historical datasets.

As these capabilities become more integrated into the analytical process, an important consideration emerges. Ter Schure emphasizes that AI systems function within the boundaries established by human input. He notes that the data they analyze, the assumptions embedded in their programming, and the frameworks they rely upon all originate from human decisions. Without these elements, the system may lack direction and purpose. Ter Schure states, “AI can accelerate the ‘how,’ but it still depends on a human to define the ‘why.’ That distinction applies across every layer of market analysis.

This relationship becomes especially relevant in financial forecasting, where interpretation plays a central role. AI can analyze historical data and identify recurring patterns, yet its perspective remains limited to what has already been observed. The same research notes that even advanced systems encounter challenges during periods of structural change or unprecedented market conditions, where historical data offers limited guidance. In such situations, the ability to interpret evolving conditions becomes as important as computational power.

For Ter Schure, forecasting involves working with probabilities rather than fixed outcomes. AI can assist in outlining potential scenarios, yet it does not determine which outcome will unfold. “Markets evolve through a combination of structure and behavior,” he explains. “A model can highlight patterns, but understanding how those patterns develop in real time still requires human judgment.”

This dynamic also extends to how AI interacts with human assumptions. According to Dr. Ter Schure, since these systems learn from existing data and user inputs, their outputs often reflect the perspectives embedded within that information. As a result, the quality of the initial assumptions plays a significant role in shaping the outcome. “If the initial premise includes a bias, the output often reflects it. The responsibility remains with the analyst to question, refine, and interpret the result,” Ter Schure remarks.

Such considerations become even more important when viewed through the lens of market behavior. Financial markets, as Ter Schure notes, are often influenced by collective sentiment, where emotions such as optimism and caution influence price movements. “Regardless of the computerization of trading, market behaviour has remained constant,” he says. While AI can identify historical expressions of these behaviors, interpreting their significance within a current context typically requires experience and perspective. 

Within this broader context, Arnout’s methodology illustrates how structured human analysis can complement technological tools. His approach combines Fibonacci ratios with the Elliott Wave principle, focusing on wave structures, extensions, and corrective patterns. These frameworks offer a way to interpret market cycles and map potential pathways for price movement. A key element of his method involves incorporating alternative scenarios through double corrections or extensions, allowing for multiple potential outcomes to be evaluated simultaneously.

This multi-scenario framework supports adaptability as market conditions evolve. “Each structure presents more than one pathway,” he explains. “By preparing for those alternatives, you create a framework that evolves with the market as new information becomes available.” This perspective allows for continuous reassessment, where forecasts are refined as additional data emerges.

Ter Schure stresses that although AI can assist in identifying patterns within such frameworks, the interpretation of complex wave structures introduces nuances that extend beyond automated analysis. Multi-layered corrections and extensions often depend on contextual judgment, where small variations influence the broader interpretation.

Overall, Ter Schure suggests that AI serves as an extension of the analytical process, enhancing specific components while leaving interpretive decisions to the analyst. Its ability to execute defined tasks with speed and precision complements the depth of human judgment. He states, “Technology expands what we can do, but understanding determines how we apply it. The combination is where meaningful progress takes place.”



Source link