Google AI: Speed Means Googlers Do Not Know What Is Happening to Users

June 3, 2026

green-dino_thumbAnother dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.

I just read “Gemini User Hits 5-hour Usage Cap after a Single Prompt, Google Responds.” The article explains that the many changes to Google’s smart services are not understood by users or Googlers. Remarkably the article explains that no one knew AI usage limits would cause prompts to fail. Plus the write up includes a stunning quote from a Googler; to wit:

“Yikes, let us take a look!”

Okay, but it is clear from the story, that Googlers just released changes. No one took a “look.” Isn’t this interesting? Let me share some thoughts about why unintended consequences are rarely considered and why those involved in online products and services don’t bother to do what I would call “real work.”

image

Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand the management problem. When I was in high school, I took classes at the University of Illinois. The lead professor (Dr. Shattuck, if I recall correctly) told us, “You are exceptional.” Who cared? We were living in a dorm, not a parent within miles. Then when I was talking with a smooth operator at the blue chip consulting firm, Ron Something said, “You are one in 10,000.” Both of these people were in the cow herd waste output business. I think the Google does the same thing. I had the thrill of being in a meeting at the Big Dog of Search when one senior manager said, “Here’s our GLAT.” I looked at the weird green document and replied, “It looks like the SAT. What is it?” The Googler laughed and said, “Some people who want to work here have to take the test because we’re Google.”

Yeah, right. In each of these cases, the people desperately want to convince themselves that they are gifted, the blessed ones, or psychologically off the norm. What happens in each of these “organizational constructs” that blend self-delusion with a task and those involved in the task is the following:

People do their think. These individuals know they are special. Therefore, just do it. One person with whom I worked at an outfit in Columbus, Ohio, loved the word “decider.” These people are deciders. What’s the result of an organization of deciders? Here are some characteristics:

  1. Most people in the organization have no idea what the other person in the adjacent cube or chair is doing.
  2. The rarely attentive middle managers whether in person or in some hippy dippy digital form like a Slack or a Zoom don’t know what questions to ask. Consequently, only a big win or a catastrophic screw up captures their attention. Most of the time, modern managers are clueless and “don’t have time” to be enriched by clues.
  3. The leadership of the organization floats weirdly in a bubble which blocks most negative or unpleasant inputs. Thus, most “leadership” slips into or actively embraces the “I’m special” thought process. Rules and social norms are not that important.

The Google craziness is not localized in Google. It exists, to greater and lesser degrees, at the BAIT outfits (BAIT is my lingo for big AI tech). These firms want to make the rules for everyone else. Most of them operate as if they were sovereign powers. This explains the disdain Elon Musk seems to display to the French judiciary’s criminal charge against X.com/Grok and why Meta’s cooperation with UK authorities is not exactly a priority when one’s firm is struggling in the AI World Cup.

The result, if my analysis is accurate even if based on my personal experiences, are situations like the one described in the article. The same approach has manifested itself in Microsoft’s crawfishing on some of its AI initiatives. The key point I want to make is that these type of management methods are now the norm. Whether it is the hapless owner of a Dodge RAM truck or a person who buys no name ear buds from an Amazon-type vendor, the new management methods virtually guarantee problems for a client, customer, or user.

Whom can one blame? Sorry. There is no one. The failure to do the basics of a “good job” have been displaced by the idea that superior individuals exist, can make decisions in a vacuum or a small circle of contacts, or just don’t care due to incentives. I am not blaming anyone, not even the surprised Google AI wizard. Welcome to the datasphere circa 2026. I am glad I am old.

Stephen E Arnold, June 3, 2026

Comments

Got something to say?





  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta