Google Quietly Discontinues AI-Generated Image Feature in Google Earth After Users Create Taboo Content

After years of integrating generative artificial intelligence (AI) into its product lineup, including Gemini in Google Docs and an AI overview in search engines, Google has quietly discontinued its Nano Banana 2 feature in Google Earth just a day after its rollout. The decision comes as users began generating taboo imagery using the tool, forcing Google to pull the feature while implementing stronger safeguards.

According to a Google spokesperson, the company had envisioned legitimate uses for the feature, such as visualizing planning concepts or historical reconstructions. However, users quickly began abusing the system to create false images meant for disinformation. Some generated images showed a nuclear plant in Iran, refugees near the Mexico-US border, and fabricated disasters tied to real-world locations.

The Nano Banana technology allowed users to overlay AI-generated scenes onto real satellite, aerial, and 3D imagery using simple queries built into its Gemini chatbot. Unlike earlier AI-image generators, Nano Banana was designed to enable users to edit their images, akin to Photoshop. The feature added objects within an image while preserving realistic features.

Google released the Nano Banana software integration with Google Earth with some safeguards in place. Images generated using the system were separated from authentic Google Earth imagery and embedded with watermarks indicating they had been created with AI. Additionally, the company employed SynthID, a cryptographic watermarking technology designed to identify AI-generated content.

However, experts say that these minor guidelines set by the company are insufficient. Emily Black, an NYU computer science and engineering professor, notes that while Google’s system makes fabricated images detectable, it is not a full solution. ‘To their credit, Google has a system that makes fabricated images detectable,’ she said. However, recent research has shown that this approach is not foolproof.

The European Union AI Act requires providers like Google to make synthetic content detectable. Google’s compliance with this requirement was achieved by embedding SynthIDs into generated images. Black also points out that SynthID is ‘invisible to the naked eye’ and serves as a way for computers to check if an image was created using AI.

In contrast, digital watermarks used in the case of Google Earth and Nano Banana are only visible when viewed within the platform’s context. This means images can be screenshotted or recreated outside of Google’s platform without retaining metadata from the original fabrication. Black emphasizes that policymakers need to collaborate with experts to develop better solutions for detecting AI-generated content.

Black currently researches how AI outputs influence user decisions and trust, which can lead to real-life negative consequences, such as poor investment decisions based on incorrect financial information hallucinated by large language models. Her ongoing work demonstrates that simply disclosing information about being AI-generated may not prevent users from trusting it.

In fact, Black’s research shows that run-of-the-mill disclosures are often ineffective at dissuading users from following harmful advice. Even with disclaimers like ‘AI chatbots can make mistakes; check important information,’ the presence of incorrect AI-generated advice significantly increases a user’s likelihood of taking a future action.

Google acknowledged that the generated imagery created by users appeared to violate company policies and stated it was rolling back the feature while implementing stronger guardrails. The discontinuation marks a significant shift in how Google Earth is perceived, as its reputation for providing an accurate visual record of the physical world has been compromised by the integration of AI-generated content.

Google’s trust from consumers means users often approach imagery within the platform with an assumption that it corresponds to reality. With AI being integrated into what was once considered a real-feed of planet Earth, even Google Earth images are now scrutinized under a microscope. Henk Van Ess, an international expert in online research methods in AI, notes that this shift has significant implications for how users interpret and trust information.

Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment on whether the feature will return after additional safeguards are developed.