When I was at school, a new technology launched in the form of a magic box that could answer any question you wanted. It was called Google, and my teachers cautioned that we shouldn’t trust everything it spat out, because anyone could put anything on the internet. Three decades later, history is repeating – with a twist. Schools are now begging Google to allow students to access its search engine, but the tech giant says that is only possible if teachers also accept a new kind of magic box, AI.
Google is far more integrated into education than it was in my day, with its Classroom and Workspace products providing teachers and students with a range of tools from email to lesson planning. More recently, Google has incorporated its Gemini AI chatbot into Classroom, to the chagrin of some US school districts that want to be able to decide whether or not students have access to AI. Sure, said Google, you can switch off AI, but then you lose search. “Search and AI are deeply integrated,” Google’s Chris Phillips .
At first, I thought this must be a misunderstanding about what we call AI. For most people today, AI means a large language model (LLM) of the type that powers Gemini or ChatGPT. But Google’s search engine has long used AI in the historical sense of machine learning, starting in 2015 that helped relate words to concepts in order to produce search results. The AI Overviews you often see at the top of a search today, which launched in 2024, are the only part of the search results produced by Gemini.
Advertisement
Surely, I thought, what’s happening here is that school districts saying “no AI” simply mean no AI Overviews, while Google is quite reasonably saying it isn’t possible to rip out elements of its search engine that have been operating for over a decade in order to comply with a strict “no AI” request. This can easily be solved by making sure everyone is talking about the same thing, right?
Wrong. Google really is presenting schools with an all-or-nothing choice. “If a school is not comfortable with that and simply wants AI off, then they have the choice to not have search on at all,” Phillips told . This is a product decision, not a technical one. AI Overviews do not appear on every search, and they can be disabled for every search by . Google could surely provide schools with this option, if it wished. When asked to comment, a Google spokesperson sent New Scientist a link to with its Gemini product.
We have seen a tech giant use this playbook before. Around the same time that Google was launching its young, upstart search engine in the late 1990s, Microsoft was facing legal action for forcing people to install the Internet Explorer (IE) browser as part of its Windows operating system, in an effort to fight off competitor browsers. At the time, for IE were an “integral part” of Windows and could not be removed “without impairing the performance of the operating system”. In 2001, a US court ruled that this integration served to illegally maintain a monopoly, and Microsoft was obliged to make other browsers more accessible. By 2010, , following a European Commission ruling.
There is no suggestion that Google is doing anything illegal in its approach to schools, although the company is , and commentators have accused it of exploiting that monopoly. “Google is trying to use its monopoly power to force AI into our public schools”, . Following the backlash, that for schools, Gemini and search will be off by default and schools can choose to turn on either at their discretion. That doesn’t actually address the issue of having search without AI Overviews, however.
Ultimately, it will probably be for the courts to decide whether Google should be made to offer search without AI, but I am more interested in the question of how and when children should begin to use AI. Google has a 90 per cent market share in search, so it would be naive to think that children aren’t being exposed to AI Overviews, even if they do end up banned in schools. Personally, I know that AI Overviews can be heavily flawed and provide incorrect information, and yet I still find it hard to ignore them at the top of my search results, even while knowing that I should be clicking links to provide websites with revenue if I want them to continue existing.
Research on how LLMs affect learning is still in early days, but the evidence we have is worrying. found that people who used an LLM summary rather than a list of links gained a shallower understanding of a topic, seemingly because having the results predigested by an AI required less cognitive effort. in China found that allowing them to use AI drastically improved homework performance, but saw exam results fall – suggesting that the children were letting AI do their homework for them without really learning anything.
Google’s answer to these concerns is its Guided Learning product, which it is . It says the system will pick up when children are looking for help with homework, and walk them through it step by step, rather than simply providing an answer. , Google says this approach provided more than a year of typical learning progress in just eight weeks.
In principle, I am not against the use of AI in schools – it is a modern, useful technology that will surely be part of students’ lives in the future, and they should learn to understand it just as I learned the pros and cons of using Google back in the 90s. The question of how to handle homework assignments in the age of AI, when an essay can be produced in seconds, is thorny and ongoing. One option is to simply scrap homework and require more in-classroom testing, but if Google gets its way and AI ends up being unavoidable there as well, it seems like teachers will have little control. That, to me, is the most objectionable point, as it should not be down to tech giants to set education policy.
Further AI reading
- A YouTuber has used AI to analyse inaudible (to humans) sounds from aircraft in the background of a video, and then cross-reference that with public flight data to . It is pretty extraordinary, and I have seen other people replicating the technique, but I would be interested to see a proper study on just how powerful this is.
- , demonstrating just how reliant the AI company has become on its own products. There are a few caveats to that – Anthropic is obviously not paying itself retail prices, and many of its employees are remunerated with stock options in addition to salaries. Nevertheless, Anthropic has seen its internal use rocket this year, up in September by a factor of 250 compared with January.
- The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre has warned that “AI-cyber” (a horrible phrase, meaning AI-powered cyberattacks) will . I entirely agree – the ability of the latest AI models to find security holes in software is astounding, and it seems like the only way to defend against it is yet more AI.
