Google Earth's new AI image generation function didn't survive a day after users deepfaked disasters 37%

By Katherine Li29%

7/31/2026, 1:55:11 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Burden of Proof, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 26.5% saturation with 113 hits. Analysis detected 633 faulty-reasoning hits from 426 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.2% and a BS Rank of 37% (19,397 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 63.40% of the article peer group.

Google Earth's AI editing tool created a kaiju attacking Downtown Los Angeles. 
Google Earth AI 
Google pulled its AI image-editing tool from Google Earth in less than 24 hours after launch. 
AI researchers created deepfakes using Google's tool, raising concerns about misinformation. 
Users have posted deepfake satellite images of attacks and disasters, such as a flood. 
Google pulled a new AI image-editing feature from Google Earth less than 24 hours after launch. 
The company launched the function on Thursday, allowing Gemini's Nano Banana 2 image model to access Google Earth and transform locations with text prompts. 
The function, however, quickly got out of hand. 
AI researcher Henk van Ess, for example, created extremely realistic deepfakes, including fake refugee camps along the US-Mexico border and a nuclear plant in Iran. 
Tonight I typed just one sentence into Google Earth and put refugees near the Mexican border. 
Then I planted a nuclear plant in Iran. 
What on earth is Google doing? 
Check my latest post here: https://t.co/N0h6CVECqS pic.twitter.com/WSjdcEXWJx 
 𝚑𝚎𝚗𝚔 𝚟𝚊𝚗 𝚎𝚜𝚜 (@henkvaness) July 30, 2026 
Other users used the tool to create AI images of a nonexistent flood and a 9/11-style attack. 
Heads up Mets and emergency managers. 
Google Maps AI gen tool now freely accessible and easy to use. 
I spoofed flooding and tor damage in 20 seconds 
*NOT REAL IMAGES* https://t.co/NkYPxD89Om pic.twitter.com/tbMgf8B5Oy 
 Peter Forister 🍁🍂🍁 (@forecaster25) July 31, 2026 
@Google @googleearth Really great and useful feature you have here, I don't see any downside whatsoever pic.twitter.com/5rOByNxpmL 
 Sonic from the Undeground (@MDualsense) July 30, 2026 
By Friday, Google had reversed course. 
"We've seen geospatial professionals using this feature for a range of useful purposes, however we've also seen people sharing screenshots of generated imagery that appear to violate our policies," a Google spokesperson said in a statement posted on X. 
"So we're rolling back this feature in Google Earth while we work on implementing stronger guardrails." 
Google added that the AI-generated images were watermarked and never appeared in the public Google Earth experience. 
Google is not the only company that has lately rolled out AI features only to quickly remove them. 
Meta launched Muse Image on July 7 with a feature that allowed users to generate AI images using images available on all adult-owned public Instagram accounts that had not changed their settings to opt out. 
Meta removed the feature in less than a week and said it had "missed the mark." 
Read the original article on Business Insider 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.0%Katherine Li: 0.9%Business Insider: 2.3%Confirmation Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Katherine Li: 3.9%Business Insider: 2.8%Availability Heuristic15.7%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.5%Katherine Li: 0.6%Business Insider: 1.1%Hindsight Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.1%Business Insider: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Katherine Li: 5.6%Business Insider: 3.6%Framing Effect1.2%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.0%Katherine Li: 0.6%Business Insider: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Katherine Li: 1.6%Business Insider: 2.8%Optimism Bias2.8%This article: 3.3%Katherine Li: 0.9%Business Insider: 1.5%Pessimism Bias3.3%This article: 24.4%Katherine Li: 5.7%Business Insider: 4.0%Negativity Bias24.4%This article: 5.9%Katherine Li: 1.3%Business Insider: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.7%Business Insider: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 1.0%Business Insider: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 2.6%Business Insider: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.9%Katherine Li: 1.3%Business Insider: 1.0%Recency Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.0%Katherine Li: 2.7%Business Insider: 2.8%Appeal to Authority4.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.3%Business Insider: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.2%Katherine Li: 1.9%Business Insider: 3.4%Hasty Generalization4.2%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.7%Business Insider: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 2.0%Business Insider: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.6%Katherine Li: 1.6%Business Insider: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.6%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.2%Katherine Li: 0.4%Business Insider: 0.2%Burden of Proof9.2%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.2%Katherine Li: 0.1%Business Insider: 0.2%Composition/Division4.2%This article: 26.5%Katherine Li: 3.3%Business Insider: 2.9%Anecdotal26.5%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.9%Katherine Li: 1.2%Business Insider: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.9%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.4%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Personal Incredulity1.4%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.2%Katherine Li: 0.8%Business Insider: 0.9%Unattributed Quote9.2%This article: 3.8%Katherine Li: 1.2%Business Insider: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection3.8%This article: 6.6%Katherine Li: 3.2%Business Insider: 2.3%Biased Writer Voice6.6%This article: 1.4%Katherine Li: 0.1%Business Insider: 1.0%Indoctrination1.4%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.1%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.2%Business Insider: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

426 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers27%attributed speech312writer words
Selected voice

Henk van Ess

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words22% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.0 ptsWriter: 9.0%Henk van Ess: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Henk van Ess: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.9 ptsWriter: 1.9%Henk van Ess: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.