Want to get featured here? Explore premium visibility opportunities.

Contact us

AI NewsWhy Google’s AI can’t spell Google (or anything else)

Why Google’s AI can’t spell Google (or anything else)

7:06 AM IST · May 28, 2026

Why Google’s AI can’t spell Google (or anything else)

How many Ps are in Google? According to Google, there are two. There’s also is also “exactly 1 ‘r’ in the word ‘poop’,” Google’s AI Overview says, as well as two ‘d’s in the word journalism, yet spelled it: j-o-u-r-n-a-d-i-s-m. Google did at least identify that there is one P in the last name of the U.S. president, but spelled it as t-r-p-u-m. You didn’t need to be a prophet to predict thatGoogle’s AI-forward Search overhaulwas going to go over poorly. We’ve done this before. The first time Google added AI Overviews to Search, the feature ended upciting satirical posts from The Onion and Reddit, advising people to eat rocks and put glue on their pizza. This time around, as Google doubles down on its commitment to make generative AI the centerpiece of its 29-year-old flagship product, it’s not surprising to see it stumble. Google is revamping its entire search engine to this btwpic.twitter.com/PIR4llFhiV “Counting within words has been a known challenge for LLMs, and we’re working to fix this particular issue,” Google told TechCrunch in an emailed statement. These basic spelling errors may seem familiar. LLMs, the kind of artificial intelligence that powers chatbots and other text-generators, are not built to understand spelling. It’s been a running joke for years that whenever a company unveils a new AI model, you should ask ithow many ‘r’s are in the word strawberry. These AI models — which can code an app in seconds, or solve problems that have stumped mathematicians for decades — are about as good as a kindergartener at spelling. Google’s AI overview woes reach beyond silly spelling mistakes though. Google already patched an issue from last week in which searching the word “disregard” would yield what looked like a dictionary definition of the word, only the definition was shown as, “Understood. Let me know whenever you have a new prompt or question!” But these spelling errors have remained amusing because they’re so difficult to quash. As researchers havepreviously explainedwhen we’ve asked about these spelling conundrums, AI doesn’t perceive sentences as units of language made up of words and letters. Many LLMs are built on transformers models, which break down text into tokens, which can be full words, syllables, or letters, depending on the model. Instead of “reading” like a human would, the AI converts the text into numerical representations of itself, which are then contextualized to help the AI come up with a logical response. “LLMs are based on this transformer architecture, which notably is not actually reading text. What happens when you input a prompt is that it’s translated into an encoding,” Matthew Guzdial, an AI researcher and assistant professor at the University of Alberta,told TechCrunch. “When it sees the word ‘the,’ it has this one encoding of what ‘the’ means, but it does not know about ‘T,’ ‘H,’ ‘E.’” The token-based architecture that powers LLMs like Google’s AI overview is inherently limiting, and researchers haven’t been optimistic that they can solve the spelling problem. “It’s kind of hard to get around the question of what exactly a ‘word’ should be for a language model, and even if we got human experts to agree on a perfect token vocabulary, models would probably still find it useful to ‘chunk’ things even further,” Sheridan Feucht, a PhD student studying large language model interpretability at Northeastern University,told TechCrunch. “My guess would be that there’s no such thing as a perfect tokenizer due to this kind of fuzziness.” This isn’t necessarily an urgent problem on researchers’ minds, since the utility of LLMs doesn’t come in their capacity to spell. But these blatant failures help us remember that AI is not perfect, even if it may sometimes seem like an all-knowing power beyond our comprehension. We cannot blindly trust AI outputs without double-checking their accuracy.

read more

Latest AI News

View All News →
How Hexaware's GIFT City Move Gives Indian IT a New Financial Frontier

How Hexaware's GIFT City Move Gives Indian IT a New Financial Frontier

Hexaware plans to create nearly 1,000 high-skilled jobs over the next three years.

2 hours ago

View

Encryption, spyware, and now Mythos: History shows why cyber export control doesn’t work

Encryption, spyware, and now Mythos: History shows why cyber export control doesn’t work

Last Friday, citing unspecified national security concerns, the White Houseordered Anthropicto restrict the export of its powerful AI models Fable and Mythos to anyone outside of the United States, as well as foreign nationals inside the country. Shortly after, the AI giant hastily pulled the plug on both models, which have now been unavailable to anyone for a week. The episode is the first real test of whether the U.S. government can use export controls to contain frontier AI the way it has tried, with very uneven results, to contain encryption and spyware before it. And dramatic as it may sound, how this standoff gets resolved could shape not just Anthropic’s access to foreign markets but the rulebook that other AI labs will have to build around. Some context first.Ever since Anthropic launched Mythos in April, the company has marketed it assome kind of Doomsday cyber machinethat could wreak havoc on the internet if released too widely — which is why, before the ban,only around 150 vetted companies and government organizationshad access to it at all. The goal was helping defenders secure their software and services before the bad guys could reach Mythos-like capabilities. So what triggered the ban? Two subsequent events, reportedly. The first: Anthropic gave a South Korean telecom access to Mythos through its limited partner program, and U.S. officials grew alarmed after identifying the company as one they suspected had ties to China. (The company,widely reportedto be SK Telecom, hasdeniedany China connection.) Amazon CEO Andy Jassy also reportedlyalerted the administrationafter Amazon’s own researchers, he said, found a way around Fable 5’s safeguards. Anthropic disputes the “jailbreak” label, calling it a narrow, already-patched issue rather than a wholesale defeat of the model’s safety measures. The result was the same: the Commerce Department issued an export control directive, and Anthropic had to scramble to immediately limit access to its products — within roughly 90 minutes of being notified, by some accounts. None of this is new, though. Governments have tried to use export controls to limit the proliferation of what they see as dangerous cyber technology for decades, but their track record has been middling at best. The U.S. government was behind what is perhaps history’s most spectacular failure of this approach in the early to mid-1990s. At the time, computer scientists were developing encryption technologies to secure data as it traveled over the internet. One of those encryption products was called Pretty Good Privacy, or PGP, a popular software that could encrypt data and make it virtually impossible to unscramble even if intercepted as it traveled to its intended recipient over the internet. The U.S. government initially saw PGP as a dangerous weapon, fearing it would prevent its intelligence agencies from snooping on emails as they crossed their wires. To stop the distribution of PGP, the U.S. Customs Serviceopened a criminal investigationagainst PGP’s creator Phil Zimmermann for allegedly violating arms export controls. He fought back by publishing PGP’s source codeas a printed book, igniting what is known today as the “Crypto Wars.” Zimmermann later won a key battle when the investigation was closed, paving the way for crucial end-to-end encryption algorithms such as the one used by billions of Signal and WhatsApp users. Later during the early 2010s, researchers began discovering Western-made spyware used against dissidents in the Middle East. In response, several governments agreed to expandthe Wassenaar Arrangement, an international treaty that limits the export of dual-use software and technologies that are used in both civilian and military applications. The idea was to classify surveillance and hacking software as dual-use, thus forcing spyware makers to get export licenses to sell their products abroad. Contact UsDo you have more information about the Mythos ban? From a non-work device and network, you can contact Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai securely on Signal at +1 917 257 1382, or via Telegram and Keybase @lorenzofb, oremail. But Wassenaar has always had two inherent weaknesses. There are several countries that don’t adhere to the agreement, including Israel, which houses some of the world’s most active spyware makers. The agreement also depends on countries applying it to companies within their borders at their own discretion. For a time, the Italian government allowed one of the country’s then-top spyware makers, Hacking Team, a license to export its tools around the world, despite the company’s track record of selling spyware tooppressivegovernmentsthatused itto hack journalists and human rights activists. Since then,othercountriesin Europe have been lax with spyware makers like Italy. Despite numerous scandals, Europe, home tomany spyware and hacking tools makers, hascontinually failed to curb the export of spywareto authoritarian regimes. Critics say that a recently renewed effort across the bloc of 27 member states to tackle its growing problem of spyware exports to authoritarian states “does not go far enough.” Several spyware makers, such as Intellexa, a sanctioned consortium of spyware companies,  have simply moved their operations to countries with lax export controls. Other spyware makers sought to move their operations to Saudi Arabia for similar reasons. There have been some wins. Germany-based spyware maker FinFishershut down in 2022after a multi-year investigation by German prosecutors into the company forallegedly selling spywareto Turkey without an export license. Investigators previously found the FinFisher spyware had beendeployed on the phonesof critics of Turkey’s government. As of the time of writing, the impasse between Anthropic and the Trump administration remains. There is a reasonable chance the administration will buckle and lift the restriction in the interest of keeping American AI companies competitive worldwide — a move that would amount to tacit acknowledgment that AI labs elsewhere, including in China, will likely reach similar capabilities regardless of what the U.S. restricts. Or, American AI companies could end up needing government approval before serving foreign customers at all, a compliance burden that would invariably dent their bottom line. Given the past experiences that world governments have had with trying to control the reach of software, government-mandated export controls are unlikely to be the right approach to stop malicious actors from abusing powerful dual-use cyber technologies.

6 hours ago

View

Billionaire Ambani wants AI in every call, app, and home

Billionaire Ambani wants AI in every call, app, and home

As India searches for a homegrown contender in the global artificial intelligence race, billionaire Mukesh Ambani is positioning Reliance Industries as a national champion, rolling out AI services for phone calls, mobile apps, and connected homes. At itsannual shareholder meetingon Friday, the Mumbai-based conglomerate announced Jio Call Agent, an AI assistant that can join phone calls to transcribe conversations, generate summaries, and perform tasks such as booking cabs, ordering food, and making reservations. The service, which can be activated by saying “Hey Jio,” is expected to launch later this year for Jio’s more than 500 million users. By embedding the service directly into its telecom network rather than offering it as a stand-alone app, Jio is betting AI assistance can become a native feature of phone calls. The approach could reduce consumers’ reliance on third-party call-assistant apps and give Reliance a powerful distribution advantage in an increasingly crowded AI market. Reliance also unveiled an AI-powered version of its MyJio app that can perform tasks on behalf of users, from activating eSIMs to selecting roaming plans, through natural-language requests. The company further introduced TeleFrame, a home display that uses AI agents to proactively surface information and recommendations, such as weather alerts, schedules, and household reminders. The product appears to echo a broader industry push toward ambient AI assistants for the home, an area being explored by companies such asAmazonandGoogle. The announcements mark the next phase of Reliance’s AI ambitions as India seeks to build domestic capabilities in a field largely dominated by U.S. and Chinese technology companies. The push follows thelaunch of Reliance Intelligencelast year, through which the conglomerate aims to develop AI infrastructure and services for consumers, businesses, and governments, including applications that support 22 Indian languages. “India should not be a mere consumer of AI created elsewhere. It must become a creator, adopter, and a global leader in AI,” Ambani, age 69, said. Reliance has been ramping up its AI ambitions through partnerships withGoogle,Meta, andNvidia. Earlier this year, the company announced plans toinvest $110 billion in AI infrastructureas it seeks to establish itself as a major player in India’s emerging AI ecosystem. At the shareholder meeting, Reliance also unveiled a suite of AI services for healthcare, education, agriculture, and small businesses. The products, branded JioHealthIQ, JioLearnIQ, JioKrishiIQ, and AI Vyapar, are designed to operate across multiple Indian languages and cater to local needs, the company said. The shareholder meeting also brought a major development for investorsawaiting Jio’s stock market debut. Ambani said Jio Platforms’ board had approved a draft prospectus for an initial public offering that would include a fresh issue of up to 270 million shares, according to a stock exchange filing. The announcements also raise questions about how Reliance will handle user data as it expands AI services across phone calls, mobile apps, and connected homes. While the company said the services would operate with user consent, it did not answer questions about whether data generated through the products could be used to train AI models or shared with technology partners. Reliance’s AI ambitions come as Indian companies remain heavily reliant on foreign AI models and cloud providers.Recent restrictions on accessto some of Anthropic’s latest models have underscored that dependency, showing how decisions made overseas can affectstartups and businessesbuilding AI products in India — the kind of supply-chain risk that’s pushing Indian conglomerates toward building their own stack rather than renting someone else’s. Last week, Reliance announced acollaboration with Meta to establish an AI data centerin the western state of Gujarat, building on Meta’s earlier investment in Jio Platforms and a joint venture launched last year to develop AI solutions for enterprise customers in India and overseas markets. Reliance is not alone in pursuing AI opportunities.Tata Consultancy Services,Infosys, and rivalAdani Grouphave also expanded their AI initiatives and partnerships with global players, including Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI, as India’s largest corporations race to secure a leading role in the country’s AI future. Nonetheless, for Reliance, the stakes are particularly high; it’s preparing Jio for a long-awaited stock market debut and needs new growth drivers, with the conglomerate’s shares down about 17% this year.

14 hours ago

View

The US banned Anthropic’s Fable 5 release, but the numbers don’t seem to care

The US banned Anthropic’s Fable 5 release, but the numbers don’t seem to care

Just as last week was ending, the US governmentforced Anthropic to pull its two newest models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, citing national security concerns after Amazon researchers allegedly found a way to bypass Fable 5’s guardrails. Cybersecurity researchers havesince signed an open lettercalling the move dangerous, and Anthropic itself noted the same jailbreaks exist in other models. So is this a genuine security concern, or just the latest chapter in a messy relationship between Anthropic and the Trump administration? On this episode of TechCrunch’sEquitypodcast, hosts Anthony Ha, Sean O’Kane, and Rebecca Bellan unpack what the ban means for developers building on Anthropic’s platform and for anyone watching the IPO, why itmight accidentally be good for the company, and more of the week’s headlines. Listen to the full episode to hear more about: Subscribe to Equity onYouTube,Apple Podcasts,Overcast,Spotifyand all the casts. You also can follow Equity onXandThreads, at @EquityPod.

14 hours ago

View