NotebookLM is undoubtedly one of Google's best implementations of generative AI technology, giving you the ability to explore documents and notes with a Gemini AI model. Last year, Google added the ability to generate so-called "audio overviews" of your source material in NotebookLM. Now, Google has brought those fake AI podcasts to search results as a test. Instead of clicking links or reading the AI Overview, you can have two nonexistent people tell you what the results say.

This feature is not currently rolling out widely—it's available in search labs, which means you have to manually enable it. Anyone can opt in to the new Audio Overview search experience, though. If you join the test, you'll quickly see the embedded player in Google search results. However, it's not at the top with the usual block of AI-generated text. Instead, you'll see it after the first few search results, below the "People also ask" knowledge graph section.

Credit: Google

Read full article

Comments

When major events occur, most people rush to Google to find information. Increasingly, the first thing they see is an AI Overview, a feature that already has a reputation for making glaring mistakes. In the wake of a tragic plane crash in India, Google's AI search results are spreading misinformation claiming the incident involved an Airbus plane—it was actually a Boeing 787.

Travelers are more attuned to the airliner models these days after a spate of crashes involving Boeing's 737 lineup several years ago. Searches for airline disasters are sure to skyrocket in the coming days, with reports that more than 200 passengers and crew lost their lives in the Air India Flight 171 crash. The way generative AI operates means some people searching for details may get the wrong impression from Google's results page.

Not all searches get AI answers, but Google has been steadily expanding this feature since it debuted last year. One searcher on Reddit spotted a troubling confabulation when searching for crashes involving Airbus planes. AI Overviews, apparently overwhelmed with results reporting on the Air India crash, stated confidently (and incorrectly) that it was an Airbus A330 that fell out of the sky shortly after takeoff. We've run a few similar searches—some of the AI results say Boeing, some say Airbus, and some include a strange mashup of both Airbus and Boeing. It's a mess.

Read full article

Comments

• Keeping an open mind and being flexible is key to finding a job right now.
• Work is changing fast as artificial intelligence spreads into more aspects of jobs.
• Exploring a range of industries and skill-building opportunities can help you stay competitive.

If you're trying to find a job, it's time to get scrappy.

While the job market hasn't fallen off a cliff and layoffs remain low, stiffer competition for roles, surging use of artificial intelligence, and some employers' hesitation to hire are scrambling some job searches.

That means some job seekers might have to pivot — potentially to an entirely new industry — or find other ways to stand out if they're set on a certain field.

In some cases, you might have to adjust your goals.

"Maybe put aside for the moment that dream to work for Amazon and Google, and maybe think about a different company that's more mid-cap," Angie Kamath, dean of the School of Professional Studies at New York University, told Business Insider.

Kamath said the need to stay open to various options if you're looking for a role reflects the rapid change in many industries, especially as employers and employees alike try to understand what AI will mean for many aspects of work.

"That's here to stay," she said, referring to the need for job seekers to understand how technology might remake jobs.

To keep up, Kamath said, you should find ways to build your skills. That doesn't only mean getting a degree in a field, she said. Kamath said you might look to freebie or low-cost classes, for example, on AI from Amazon, Google, or online learning platforms like Udemy.

"That's my No. 1 advice. Try something out. See if you like it. See if you hate it. See if you're energized by it," she said.

Finding ways to stand out

If you don't want to shift to a different field or job type, you might simply have to work harder to stand out.

Ryan McManus, a vice president at the tech-focused recruitment firm Selby Jennings, told BI that some employers have become more selective in who they hire.

"It might just be a bit more competitive in the sense that we're looking to check more boxes," he said, referring to finding candidates for the company's employer clients.

For those who don't necessarily have every part of a job description nailed down, intangibles like being personable and a strong communicator can make a difference, McManus said.

While finding ways to be flexible and try to stand out in a job search can help, it doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy to land a role. Some employers are slow-walking hiring, and some workers' confidence about business prospects is slipping.

In the Glassdoor Employee Confidence Index released Tuesday, the share of employees who expect a positive six-month business outlook fell to 44.1% in May from 45.8% in April. The May reading was the lowest since 2016, when Glassdoor began collecting predictions from tens of thousands of US workers.

Test your ideas

To navigate an uncertain landscape, NYU's Kamath said job seekers might think of themselves as entrepreneurs who generate more than one idea for a business.

"That's what we should do as we're looking for jobs. We should come up with a couple of versions of success, or what's interesting," she said.

To know which option might be best, Kamath said it can help to ask friends what they think. She said that might mean having a conversation with a connection on LinkedIn who's in the line of work you're considering. Or it could involve visiting an employer that has public events or conferences.

That manner of thinking, Kamath said, helps you avoid putting much pressure on yourself to land a certain role, and the thinking that "anything other than being successful in that one path equals failure."

"It widens out what you might do and where you might do it," she said.

Ultimately, Kamath said, job seekers often benefit when they step back and consider alternatives.

"That's been very eye-opening for our students and our alumni to say there's more out there than the singular path to success," she said.

Do you have a story to share about your job hunt? Contact this reporter at [email protected].

• Preparing for a job interview often involves workshopping answers to questions you might be asked.
• But it's just as important to plan the questions you'll ask your interviewer.
• A global talent leader at EY shared with us two questions she loves to be asked by job applicants.

"So what questions do you have for me?"

Just as recruiters and hiring managers have favorite things to ask candidates in job interviews, you should be prepared with questions of your own.

Asking questions during your interview helps convey your interest in a role and employer, and it can give you insights into the job, company, and colleagues you'll potentially have.

Irmgard Naudin ten Cate, global talent attraction and acquisition leader at EY, told Business Insider two of the questions job candidates ask that always make an impression on her.

One is, "What does success look like when I'm doing this job?"

Naudin ten Cate explained why it's such an effective question.

"I always really love that question because when you hear the answer, you hear what's important to people, and then you can follow up with all sorts of questions around that," she said.

It can open up ways to learn what your prospective colleagues do, what kind of work you'd be performing, and where the role fits into the larger picture. You can get more granular by asking what success would look like in the first 90 days, or the first year, Naudin ten Cate said.

Having been at EY for over 20 years, Naudin ten Cate also loves being asked why she's stayed and what she likes about the company. It gives you "a much more personal view of the work," she said.

Posing this question can help build a more personal connection with your interviewer, Naudin ten Cat said, and uncover more about career growth opportunities.

Whether you ask those two questions or others, Naudin ten Cate advises applicants to try to get answers that speak to the company's values so you can see how well they do — or don't — align with yours.

"Those are the questions that always resonate with me," she said.

• Google stock tumbled after Apple senior vice president Eddy Cue said Safari searches had dropped.
• A filing reveals another reason Google watchers worry about search: slowed growth in paid clicks.
• Some analysts are split over whether Google's Search empire is under threat.

Apple senior vice president of services Eddy Cue set alarm bells ringing on Wednesday after dropping a bombshell at Google's antitrust trial: Google searches through Safari dropped in April for the first time ever.

While his comments triggered a frenzied sell-off in Google stock, it might not be the only reason the company's watchers should be concerned about Google's ability to keep full control over the search market.

A little-noticed number in Google's latest financial disclosure may be the realest sign yet that investors have reason to worry.

After reporting blockbuster Q1 earnings last month, Google revealed in a 10-Q filing with the SEC that paid clicks for the quarter grew 2%, down from 5% growth in the same quarter a year ago. That's the slowest growth rate since the company began reporting the metric.

Paid clicks are exactly what they sound like: people click on ads across Google Search and other services such as Google Play and Gmail. Each click translates to money in Google's pocket.

Why those paid clicks are down, exactly, Google hasn't said.

"It's possible macro played a role, or searches with AI overviews delivered better results, requiring fewer 'paid clicks' to get to conversion," Bernstein analysts wrote in a note published Wednesday. "But mostly, it's a worrying KPI."

The analysts said they believe the timing of the dip, combined with Cue's comments and surging numbers of ChatGPT and Meta AI users, suggests that Google's control of the search market may be lower than previously believed.

"Combined, we estimate Google's search share is closer to 65-70% vs. the 90% we often hear," they wrote.

Google declined to comment.

Google's slice of pie

Google insists that it's seeing more searches than ever.

Since the 2000s, the company has managed to harvest vast amounts of searches by paying Apple a fee to make its search engine the default on Apple's Safari web browser. As recently as 2022, Google had paid Apple at least $20 billion —  a massive fee that signals how much value Google sees in having Apple users turn to its search engine for all their queries.

It maintains that this partnership continues to drive growth in searches. Cue's comments were provocative enough to prompt the search giant to issue a public statement stating that it continues to see "overall query growth" in Search, including an increase in total queries coming from Apple.

There's little doubt among industry watchers that the overall search pie is growing — though figures from research firm Statcounter suggest Google's control of the global search has fallen slightly. The big question is whether Google's slice of that pie is shrinking relative to rivals.

According to Statcounter, Google's share of global search traffic fell to 89.71% in March 2025, down from about 91% in March 2024 and about 93% in March 2023.

Meanwhile, competing search products are growing. In April, OpenAI said that around 10% of the world uses ChatGPT, which would be at least 800 million users. Meta also said that about 1 billion people use AI across its various products.

The search market expands with AI as chatbots and generative tools expand the definition of search. Google could reap the rewards here, though this also creates an opening for competitors charging as fast as possible to stay ahead of the search giant.

Bernstein analysts estimated that generative AI queries that run through chatbots such as ChatGPT are reaching volumes close to 15% of the queries processed by Google and other traditional search engines.

Analysts are split

Other analysts are divided on just how much of a threat Google's search business faces.

For instance, longtime Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo took to X on Wednesday to explain why he felt it was a mistake to think generative AI would not affect Google's advertising business.

He said that despite the "continued growth of Google's advertising business," the company hasn't had much competition yet.

"GenAI service providers have not launched advertising businesses, so Google Ads remains the best choice for online advertisers," Kuo wrote.

Kuo likened Google's situation to the one Yahoo faced during the 2000s. The company's advertising business, launched in 1995, only started declining in 2008, despite newfound competition from Google's AdWords business arriving back in 2000.

Analysts at investment bank Jefferies have a different view. In a research note on Wednesday, the analysts had a particular word to describe the roughly $155 billion sell-off in Google's stock following Cue's comments: "overblown."

While they acknowledged that Google's AI-powered "Overviews" feature may act as a headwind right now as it is resulting in "fewer searches," they said Google will "be able to ramp monetization" of its AI summary feature over the long run.

They also don't see a scenario where Apple shifts away from Google and causes as much harm as investors might think.

"While Safari is significant, it does not represent the entirety of search activity; iOS accounts for 18% of operating systems, and Safari holds 17% of the browser market share compared to Chrome's 66%," the analysts wrote.

Have something to share? Contact this reporter via email at [email protected] or Signal at 628-228-1836. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Google stock tumbled Wednesday after Apple's executive Eddy Cue said AI rivals were cutting into the search giant.
• Google responded by saying that's not the case.
• It's possible that both arguments are correct. The stakes are very high.

Is Google screwed?

That's the $2 trillion question the tech world is trying to understand following Wednesday's blockbuster news: A top Apple executive said search queries on the company's Safari browser were declining because people were using AI engines like ChatGPT instead.

Investors immediately acted as if Google's astonishing run at the top of the tech heap was over, and slashed the company's stock by more than 8%.

But a day later, Google's stock was climbing back up a bit, and there's a healthy debate about what Cue's statement means — as well as why he said it.

Spoiler: I'm not going to solve this one today. But let's at least look at the argument.

The most obvious way to view Cue's comments was the way Wall Street did: that Google search dominance was being eroded by AI competitors.

After all, fear of being usurped by AI is what pushed Google to fast-track its own AI efforts, even when some of those efforts created embarrassing results.

But later on Wednesday, Google put out a statement that basically said Cue was wrong, without actually saying that out loud. Instead, the company said it was continuing to see increasing searches, and "that includes an increase in total queries coming from Apple's devices and platforms."

So that looks like two of the world's most powerful and valuable companies are disagreeing over basic, knowable facts.

But people who pay attention to this stuff are focusing on three key words in Google's statement: "total," "devices," and "platforms." And the absence of another word: "Safari."

And that's leading them to translate Google's statement this way: "Maybe Apple really is seeing fewer searches on Safari, the default web browser on iPhones. But you can use Google in other ways on iPhones — namely, via the Google app, but also via Google's own Chrome browser. And people are using those more — enough to counter any decline elsewhere."

Assuming that this translation is accurate, that should reassure Google and its boosters a bit, though not completely: Cue said the searches on Safari were down for the first time ever, and that's not the kind of signal you can just wave away.

And even if Safari Google searchers are really moving to things like the Google app instead, that also underlines the fact that people who used to just type something into their iPhone browser know now they can get results other ways. And there's no reason they couldn't also be searching on Google competitors like ChatGPT.

A Google rep declined to comment; Apple hasn't responded to my request for comment.

Google investors, by the way, don't seem 100% convinced by Google's statement: The stock is up 3% on Thursday, which means Google is still worth 5% less than it was Wednesday morning, when Cue started testifying in the US vs. Google antitrust trial.

Which brings us to the second question Google and Apple watchers are speculating about: Why did Cue say what he said in court, after all?

I'm an Occam's razor guy, so my first take was that Cue answered the questions he was asked in court.

But there's also a 4D chess argument, put forth by folks like MoffettNathanson's analyst Michael Nathanson. It goes like this: Cue has an incentive to portray Google as a wounded animal.

That's because Google pays Apple at least $20 billion a year to make Google the default search engine on Safari (that's the reason Cue has insight into Google's search activity), and a federal judge has already declared that Google has an illegal monopoly in search.

And one of the remedies the judge could push for would be to prevent Google from paying Apple for that valuable real estate — which would mean Apple could lose all of that high-margin revenue.

So, the theory goes, convincing the judge that Google no longer has a stranglehold on search, because of AI competition, might allow those payments to keep flowing after all.

That theory also helps explain Google's muted response on Wednesday night, where the company tried to walk the line between tooting its own horn (which bucks up investors but could damage its legal argument) and acknowledging that it has real competition (which could help Google in court but hurt it in the market).

Which brings us back to where we started: Is Google really starting to lose out to the ChatGPTs of the world, and entering a permanent decline, just like pay-TV networks a decade ago? Or is it holding its own despite the competition? Depending on where you're asking the question, Google might give you a different answer.

Correction: May 8, 2025 — An earlier version of this story misstated which company the Safari browser belongs to. It's Apple, not Google.

The ongoing war between the Trump administration and Harvard University has taken a new twist, with the government sending Harvard a letter that, amid what appears to be a stream-of-consciousness culture war rant, announces that the university will not be receiving any further research grants. The letter potentially suggests that Harvard could see funding restored by "complying with long-settled Federal Law," but earlier demands from the administration included conditions that went well beyond those required by law.

The letter, sent by Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, makes it somewhat difficult to tell exactly what the government wants, because most of the text is a borderline deranged rant written in florid MAGA-ese. You don't have to go beyond the first paragraph to get a sense that this is less a setting of funding conditions than an airing of grievances:

Instead of using these funds to advance the education of its students, Harvard is engaging in a systemic pattern of violating federal law. Where do many of these "students" come from, who are they, how do they get into Harvard, or even into our country—and why is there so much HATE? These are questions that must be answered, among many more, but the biggest question of all is, why will Harvard not give straightforward answers to the American public?

Does Harvard have to answer these questions to get funding restored? It's unclear.

Read full article

Comments