How to turn off Google's AI Overviews in web searches

Google's AI Overviews do not save me time. For one, I work for a tech blog and am therefore professionally curious as to whether or not the generated answers are correct, so I spend a few ticks figuring that out. (Answer: Sometimes, but not always!)
Then things get existential as I contemplate how long a self-cannibalizing system can sustain itself — if the AI gives answers pulled from websites that survive on visits from readers, what happens when no one visits those sites because AI cribbed the answer? Will I still get to write for websites if websites die from traffic starvation? It's a lot to think about when all I want is TSA's latest lithium-ion battery regulations.
Curiously (and unhelpfully) the first result when you Google 'How to turn off AI Overviews in Chrome' doesn't actually answer the question. The entry, from Google Support, discusses turning the feature off back when AI Overviews were experimental and handled through Google Labs. Navigate a little further down that page and you'll see:
Note: Turning off 'AI Overviews and more' in Search Labs will not disable all AI Overviews in Search. AI Overviews are part of Google Search like other features, such as knowledge panels, and can't be turned off.
Thankfully, I work with intelligent people and one of them supplied me with a simple method of ensuring each search performed in a Chrome browser bypasses the AI Overview and uses results from the Web tab only. Here's how you too can avoid wasted time (and energy) so you can search like it's 2024.
Click the three dots in the upper right corner of your Chrome browser
Go to Settings > Search engine > Manage search engines and search
Under Site search, click the Add button
Enter Name: Google/Web
Enter Shortcut: https://www.google.com/
Enter URL: {google:baseURL}search?udm=14&q=%s
Click Add
Then, (hat tip to Tom's Hardware for helping me figure this bit out) set the search type to default by clicking the three dots next to the shortcut you just created and clicking Make default.
Now, go Google 'the best laptop power banks' and click on the Engadget entry (usually one to four results down) and spend a few moments looking at the ads (and the picture of my desk) before you move on so I can still have a job in 2026.
In that same Tom's Hardware article, Avram Piltch links to the extension he built, which is a super easy way to hide the AI Overviews from sight. It'll still generate the response, you just won't see it. I prefer the Web method above, to avoid any unnecessary machine processing on my behalf, but the extension is easier and keeps you on the familiar 'All' search results tab with knowledge panels, video results and the like.
To turn off the AI Overview for Chrome on your phone, I'll direct you to the fine folks at tenbluelinks. Just open the link in your phone's browser and follow the steps for Android or iOS.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Google AI is worse at Pokemon than I was when I was 5 – taking 800 hours to beat the Elite 4 and having a breakdown when its HP got low

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. If you're someone who thinks AI is almost ready to take over the world, I have some good or bad (depending on your stance on things) news for you: Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro took over 800 hours to beat the 29-year-old children's game Pokemon Blue. There's a Twitch account called Gemini_Plays_Pokemon, a pale imitation of the incredible Twitch Plays Pokemon account that started this trend. First things first: how long did it take the AI to actually complete the game? Well, it was a staggering 813 hours. I feel like you could hit buttons randomly and beat the game faster than that. After some tweaks by the creator of this Twitch channel, the AI managed to halve its time to a still outrageous 406.5 hours. That is actually dead on half the time, which is interesting mathematically but still far too long to beat a game you can win with an overleveled Venusaur. Additionally, as spotted by our friends at PC Gamer, Google DeepMind reported on the Twitch account, and something unusual happens whenever its Pokemon get low on health or power points (PP). Whenever one or both of these conditions are met, "model performance appears to correlate with a qualitatively observable degradation in the model's reasoning capability – for instance, completely forgetting to use the pathfinder tool in stretches of gameplay while this condition persists." This, combined with the AI mistakenly thinking it was playing FireRed and LeafGreen and would need to find the Tea to progress, are part of the reasons it took so long to finish. Honestly, AI just isn't very good at playing Pokemon. Someone else made Claude Plays Pokemon, and that AI spent hours trying to get out of Cerulean city because it kept jumping down a ledge to talk to an NPC it had already spoken to dozens of times. So, these AIs aren't able to beat a game that we could when we barely knew our times tables. Let's not worry about them taking our jobs any time soon. In the meantime, check out the best Pokemon games of all time.

Android Authority

2 hours ago

• Android Authority

I still keep a 6-year-old Android 10 phone in my back pocket — here's why

Andy Walker / Android Authority I've been feeling quite nostalgic lately, especially for old camera phones. Last month, I praised the Nokia 9 PureView for its unique camera setup that makes every shot an adventure. I've also revisited the LG G4, a phone that sparked my love for photography. However, there's one more older Android camera phone I still carry around whenever possible. In its prime, the HUAWEI P30 Pro was the best Android phone money could buy. Sure, that's just my opinion, but plenty of evidence supports it. It was durable and relatively compact compared to today's phones. It had simple yet attractive styling, fast performance, and excellent battery life. After five years as my loyal daily driver, its age started showing. The battery health was declining, and I received its last update in mid-2023. It's still stuck on Android 10, and there is no hope of new software versions or security upgrades. How important is smartphone camera zoom performance to you? 0 votes I only consider phones with great zoom performance. NaN % It's pretty high up my priority list. NaN % It's not that important to me. NaN % I don't care if a phone doesn't have a zoom camera. NaN % Andy Walker / Android Authority I had to upgrade, albeit reluctantly. The phone to fill that void was the Samsung Galaxy S24 FE. Our review of the 2024 Fan Edition phone was positive, and my experience has been equally solid. Despite the poor battery life, mediocre display, and heavy footprint, it's a capable upgrade that will be supported for years. I also have a Pixel 8, which I love for its small size and swift operation. Importantly, both devices are capable pocket cameras in their own right. I've had endless fun capturing street scenes and landscapes with the Pixel 8, while the Galaxy excels as a point-and-shoot portrait camera for family and friends. However, both phones lag behind the P30 Pro in one important aspect: zoom. A periscope camera that's as good as ever It may be half a decade older than the Samsung and Google phones I replaced it with, but the HUAWEI still outperforms both, grabbing objects much farther away and bringing them even closer to me. On paper, the 8MP 5x optical and 50x digital periscope lens seems modest and outdated, but I miss it dearly when the phone isn't within reach. This feeling was particularly evident during a recent road trip. I usually toss a few phones in my bag before heading off on adventures, and this time I brought the Galaxy, Pixel, and PureView along. After much of the visit was spent capturing ground-level subjects, I turned my view to the top of a building where a raptor was perched. I grabbed the Samsung — the only phone with a dedicated zoom lens — and zoomed. Despite its 3x optical and 30x digital zoom, the phone couldn't bring me close enough to my avian subject. It soon flew off, and I regretted leaving the P30 Pro at home. It may be half a decade older than the Samsung and Google phones I replaced it with, but the P30 Pro still out-zooms both. Spending less time with the P30 Pro has made me realize how vital periscope capabilities are for me on a smartphone, and not just for photography. Capturing tighter shots of distant, unapproachable fauna or flora increases the likelihood of getting an accurate hit in a bird or plant identification app. Using Lens or Circle to Search to identify other items is easier too when used via Google Photos on my primary phone. Longer zoom offers more utility, which is indispensable for my phone usage habits. Ryan-Thomas Shaw / Android Authority I've since learned my lesson. I keep the P30 Pro with me just in case I need it. Despite its age, it still works great as a backup phone, despite its growing issues. I haven't reset it, so all my apps and files are still stored safely on it. Its 256GB storage bank also comes in handy for offline file storage. Nevertheless, my recent experiences without the phone have taught me two valuable lessons. First, I can't imagine buying a phone in the future without a capable zoom lens. Sure, I could and probably should use my 70-300mm zoom lens on my D3400 more often, but I don't always have the comparatively bulky DSLR camera with me. Convenience comes at a price. Secondly, older hardware often surpasses modern innovation. The P30 Pro is proof of that. I wouldn't have considered upgrading if the phone still received regular updates. Now that it's no longer my daily driver, I don't care if it's running an older version of Android. But, thanks to its stellar reach, it more than earns its place among my current devices.

Android Authority

3 hours ago

• Android Authority

I tested Gemini's latest image generator and here are the results

Back in November, I tested the image generation capabilities within Google's Gemini, which was powered by the Imagen 3 model. While I liked it, I ran into its limitations pretty quickly. Google recently rolled out its successor — Imagen 4 — and I've been putting it through its paces over the last couple of weeks. I think the new version is definitely an improvement, as some of the issues I had with Imagen 3 are now thankfully gone. But some frustrations still remain, meaning the new version isn't quite as good as I'd like. How often do you create images with AI? 0 votes It's a daily thing for me. NaN % Maybe once per week. NaN % A few times per month. NaN % Never. NaN % So, what has improved? The quality of the images produced has generally improved, though the improvement isn't massive. Imagen 3 was already generally good at creating images of people, animals, and scenery, but the new version consistently produces sharper, more detailed images. When it comes to generating images of people — which is only possible with Gemini Advanced — I had persistent issues with Imagen 3 where it would create cartoonish-looking photos, even when I wasn't asking for that specific style. Prompting it to change the image to something more realistic was often a losing battle. I haven't experienced any of that with Imagen 4. All the images of people it generates look very professional — perhaps a bit too much, which is something we'll touch on later. One of my biggest frustrations with the older model was the limited control over aspect ratios. I often felt stuck with 1:1 square images, which severely limited their use case. I couldn't use them for online publications, and printing them for a standard photo frame was out of the question. While Imagen 4 still defaults to a 1:1 ratio, I can now simply prompt it to use a different one, like 16:9, 9:16, or 4:3. This is the feature I've been waiting for, as it makes the images created far more versatile and usable. Imagen 4 also works a lot more smoothly. While I haven't found it to be noticeably faster — although a faster model is reportedly in the works — there are far fewer errors. With the previous version, Gemini would sometimes show an error message, saying it couldn't produce an image for an unknown reason. I have received none of those with Imagen 4. It just works. Still looks a bit too retouched While Imagen 4 produces better images, is more reliable, and allows for different aspect ratios, some of the issues I encountered when testing its predecessor are still present. My main problem is that the images often aren't as realistic as I'd like, especially when creating close-ups of people and animals. Images tend to come out quite saturated, and many feature a prominent bokeh effect that professionally blurs the background. They all look like they were taken by a photographer with 15 years of experience instead of by me, just pointing a camera at my cat and pressing the shutter. Sure, they look nice, but a 'casual mode' would be a fantastic addition — something more realistic, where the lighting isn't perfect and the subject isn't posing like a model. I prompted Gemini to make an image more realistic by removing the bokeh effect and generally making it less perfect. The AI did try, but after prompting it three or four times on the same image, it seemed to reach its limit and said it couldn't do any better. Each new image it produced was a bit more casual, but it was still quite polished, clearly hinting that it was AI-generated. You can see that in the images above, going from left to right. The first one includes a strong bokeh effect, and the man has very clear skin, while the other two progress to the man looking older and older, as well as more tired. He even started balding a bit in the last image. It's not what I really meant when prompting Gemini to make the image more realistic, although it does come out more casual. Imagen 4 does a much better job with random images like landscapes and city skylines. These images, taken from afar, don't include as many close-up details, so they look more genuine. Still, it can be a hit or miss. An image of the Sydney Opera House looks great, although the saturation is bumped up quite a bit — the grass is extra green, and the water is a picture-perfect blue. But when I asked for a picture of the Grand Canyon, it came out looking completely artificial and wouldn't fool anyone into thinking it was a real photo. It did perform better after a few retries, though. Editing is better, but not quite there One of my gripes with the previous version was its clumsy editing. When asked to change something minor — like the color of a hat — the AI would do it, but it would also generate a brand new, completely different image. The ideal scenario would be to create an image and then be allowed to edit every detail precisely, such as changing a piece of clothing, adding a specific item, or altering the weather conditions while leaving everything else exactly as is. Imagen 4 is better in this regard, but not by much. When I prompted it to change the color of a jacket to blue, it created a new image. However, by specifically asking it to keep all other details the same, it managed to maintain a lot of the scenery and subject from the original. That's what happened in the examples above. The woman in the third image was the same, and she appeared to be in a similar room, but her pose and the camera angle were different, making it more of a re-shoot than an edit. Here's another example of a cat eating a popsicle. I prompted Gemini to change the color of the popsicle, and it did, and it kept a lot of the details. The cat's the same, and so is most of the background. But the cat's ears are now sticking out, and the hat is a bit different. Still, a good try. Despite its shortcomings, Imagen 4 is a great tool Even with its issues and a long wishlist of missing functionality, Imagen 4 is still among the best AI image generators available. Most of the problems I've mentioned are also present in other AI image-generation software, so it's not as if Gemini is behind the competition. It seems there are significant technical hurdles that need to be overcome before these types of tools can reach the next level of precision and realism. Other limitations are still in place, such as the inability to create images of famous people or generate content that violates Google's safety guidelines. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is a matter of opinion. For users seeking fewer restrictions, there are alternatives like Grok. Have you tried out the latest image generation in Gemini? Let me know your thoughts in the comments.