Google Keep reminders will soon move to Tasks: Here's what's changing
And while Google is yet to share the exact date, the company has shared some more details about its plan. According to the tech giant, the upcoming integration will make it easier for users to organise and manage all their to-dos in one place. Google says you can also ask Assistant or Gemini to set a reminder on your device or smart display, which will then be saved as a task in Google Tasks, with the app sending you a reminder when it's time to complete the task.
If a reminder is based on a location, the location will automatically be added to the task's details field, but you will no longer get a notification based on that location. In case you are assigned a reminder by someone else, the assigner's name will be added to the task's title, but they won't have access to that reminder.
Also, if you leave a task incomplete, it will show up on your calendar for up to 365 days as a 'Pending task' in the all-day section of the calendar. Google will also allow you to manage reminders that are converted to tasks using Assistant commands like 'Hey Google, show me my tasks' or 'Hey Google, show me my reminders.'
One thing to note here is that you don't necessarily need the Tasks app installed to use reminders with Google Assistant. Apart from Google Tasks, you can also get task notifications from the Calendar and the Google app.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
24 minutes ago
- Hans India
Is ChatGPT making us outsource thinking?
Back in 2008, The Atlantic sparked controversy with a provocative cover story: Is Google Making Us Stupid? In that 4,000-word essay, later expanded into a book, author Nicholas Carr suggested the answer was yes, arguing that technology such as search engines were worsening Americans' ability to think deeply and retain knowledge. At the core of Carr's concern was the idea that people no longer needed to remember or learn facts when they could instantly look them up online. While there might be some truth to this, search engines still require users to use critical thinking to interpret and contextualise the results. Fast-forward to today, and an even more profound technological shift is taking place. With the rise of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, internet users aren't just outsourcing memory – they may be outsourcing thinking itself. Generative AI tools don't just retrieve information; they can create, analyse and summarise it. This represents a fundamental shift: Arguably, generative AI is the first technology that could replace human thinking and creativity. That raises a critical question: Is ChatGPT making us stupid? As a professor of information systems who's been working with AI for more than two decades, I've watched this transformation firsthand. And as many people increasingly delegate cognitive tasks to AI, I think it's worth considering what exactly we're gaining and what we are at risk of losing. AI and the Dunning-Kruger effect Generative AI is changing how people access and process information. For many, it's replacing the need to sift through sources, compare viewpoints and wrestle with ambiguity. Instead, AI delivers clear, polished answers within seconds. While those results may or may not be accurate, they are undeniably efficient. This has already led to big changes in how we work and think. But this convenience may come at a cost. When people rely on AI to complete tasks and think for them, they may be weakening their ability to think critically, solve complex problems and engage deeply with information. Although research on this point is limited, passively consuming AI-generated content may discourage intellectual curiosity, reduce attention spans and create a dependency that limits long-term cognitive development. To better understand this risk, consider the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is the phenomenon in which people who are the least knowledgeable and competent tend to be the most confident in their abilities, because they don't know what they don't know. In contrast, more competent people tend to be less confident. This is often because they can recognise the complexities they have yet to master. This framework can be applied to generative AI use. Some users may rely heavily on tools such as ChatGPT to replace their cognitive effort, while others use it to enhance their capabilities. In the former case, they may mistakenly believe they understand a topic because they can repeat AI-generated content. In this way, AI can artificially inflate one's perceived intelligence while actually reducing cognitive effort. This creates a divide in how people use AI. Some remain stuck on the 'peak of Mount Stupid,' using AI as a substitute for creativity and thinking. Others use it to enhance their existing cognitive capabilities. In other words, what matters isn't whether a person uses generative AI, but how. If used uncritically, ChatGPT can lead to intellectual complacency. Users may accept its output without questioning assumptions, seeking alternative viewpoints or conducting deeper analysis. But when used as an aid, it can become a powerful tool for stimulating curiosity, generating ideas, clarifying complex topics and provoking intellectual dialogue. The difference between ChatGPT making us stupid or enhancing our capabilities rests in how we use it. Generative AI should be used to augment human intelligence, not replace it. That means using ChatGPT to support inquiry, not to shortcut it. It means treating AI responses as the beginning of thought, not the end. AI, thinking and the future of work The mass adoption of generative AI, led by the explosive rise of ChatGPT – it reached 100 million users within two months of its release – has, in my view, left internet users at a crossroads. One path leads to intellectual decline: a world where we let AI do the thinking for us. The other offers an opportunity: to expand our brainpower by working in tandem with AI, leveraging its power to enhance our own. It's often said that AI won't take your job, but someone using AI will. But it seems clear to me that people who use AI to replace their own cognitive abilities will be stuck at the peak of Mount Stupid. These AI users will be the easiest to replace. It's those who take the augmented approach to AI use who will reach the path of enlightenment, working together with AI to produce results that neither is capable of producing alone. This is where the future of work will eventually go. This essay started with the question of whether ChatGPT will make us stupid, but I'd like to end with a different question: How will we use ChatGPT to make us smarter? The answers to both questions depend not on the tool but on users. (The Conversation)
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Mocked in job interview, Indian woman's clapback after joining Google goes viral
An Indian woman's post gained widespread support after she shared a past interview experience where she was mocked by a startup interviewer who claimed she would never make it to tech giants like Google or Meta. The post, by a user named Arpita, narrated her interview experience and revealed her eventual success in a mic-drop moment. Proving the interviewer wrong, the user revealed that she now works at Google. (Pexel) 'Was grilled by a mid-level startup interviewer in a system design round, he made me design infra, estimate CPU costs, basically everything except physically build the data centre,' she wrote. However, the grilling soon turned condescending when she struggled to answer. As she faltered, the interviewer smirked and said, 'This is why people like you won't make it to big companies like Google, Meta.' Proving the interviewer wrong, the user revealed that she now works at Google. Her X bio also claims that she worked for brands like Myntra and Microsoft in the past. 'Not bragging—just wondering why some folks gatekeep based on their own insecurities," she concluded. The post quickly struck a chord with many online. "Great story. Success is the best revenge. Keep going," remarked one user. Another added, "Absolutely weird. When I take interviews, I usually try to do them in a way that shows how much I can learn from the other person." A third slammed the bad attitudes of several interviewers. "Today, most interviewers see attitude and eagerness to learn as you can not judge a person on the whole thing in those 10-15 minutes," they wrote. "I think in later stages you will get the chance to interview that interviewer in future, that's how the world works," joked a fourth user.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Why antitrust regulations are pertinent
While arguing for the Sherman Act, Senator John Sherman said in 1890, 'If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life.' The law would eventually mark the beginning of antitrust regulation in the United States, while also laying the groundwork for similar statutes preserving market competition worldwide, including in India. Sherman's idea of what constitutes a 'necessity of life' has evolved since then. Technology is reshaping societies and markets — it now shapes the production, transportation, and sale of most goods and services, leading to the rise of what we now term the global 'digital economy'. India is a significant player, with its domestic digital economy contributing 11.74% to its GDP (2022-23). This success has partially been driven by technology start-ups, which rose from just 2,000 in 2014 to over 31,000 in 2023. The government recognises their potential and leans on them to build a $35 trillion 'Viksit Bharat' by 2047. Yet Sherman's concern about a few players dominating economies still applies. In Digital India, the kings are located in foreign waters, dictating selective terms to home-grown start-ups building the country's digital future. As a result, the ability of Indian start-ups to scale is often stunted. While these global firms connect societies, they also wield immense monopolistic power. A recent case by a leading Indian online gaming company against Google, filed with the Competition Commission of India (CCI), highlights the risks posed by such dominance. On start-ups and monopolies Discriminatory practices by gatekeepers in the digital economy harm India's economy, business environment, and consumers. Google, for example, dominates distribution and discovery of digital services. With Android holding about 95% of the of the mobile operating system market share in India, it is nearly impossible for consumers to discover new online businesses without the latter hawking their services on Google's superior search engine, app store, or online advertising ecosystem. This dominance has led to discriminatory outcomes for Indian start-ups. For example, high commissions levied by Google on transactions taking place within its payments ecosystem have dampened the revenues of start-ups using these services. These issues have led domestic antitrust regulators to crack down on the tech giant, preventing Google from restricting app developers from using third-party payment systems or from communicating with their users to promote their apps. The gaming start-up's CCI filing is an addition to this long list of concerns with Google's anticompetitive behaviour in India. In its complaint, the gaming industry leader alleged that Google abused its dominant position via a discriminatory Real Money Gaming (RMG) Pilot Program operated through the Play Store, and restrictive advertising policies. Google's Pilot Program, launched in September 2022, selectively permitted two specific formats of RMG on the Play Store — Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) and rummy — limiting market access for other formats of RMG, such as the casual games offered by the gaming company. While Google discontinued similar pilots in Mexico and Brazil in June 2024, its Indian iteration continues to date, offering DFS and rummy operators relatively unfettered access. For example, the complaint notes that a DFS operator with 90% of the market share acquired 150 million users over 16 years, but upon joining the Pilot, it added another 55 million users in just one year. Google similarly amended its advertising policies following the launch of the Pilot, limiting gaming advertisements to DFS and rummy operators, which earlier allowed advertisements by all games of skill. Before these amendments, the online gaming leader claimed that 68.21% of its app downloads were derived from Google's ad program. Now, they have stopped — a deep cut for an Indian start-up with proven global credibility and scale. CCI, the forward-looking and progressive digital regulator, has began an investigation into these concerns. Costs to India Such market distortions carry serious economic consequences, compromising India's ability to reach its digital economy ambitions. Most importantly, lack of competition leads to 'reductions in quality and consumer choice[s]', and excessive reliance on few powerful players. Net-net, everyone loses, except the gatekeepers. India cannot afford such a loss in innovation — and nor can its people, who will ultimately benefit from competitive growth, driven by ambitious start-ups. Sherman's homeland offers some insight into what the future holds for markets where the antitrust issue is not addressed head-on. Antitrust scholars suggest that rising monopolisation across American industries has increased the cost of doing business for growing businesses, leading to a dramatic decrease in Initial Public Offerings. The economic consequences of such lopsided markets are too severe for India to bear. Ultimately, global tech giants play a critical role in powering these new-age businesses. What the future requires is recognition from Indian adjudicators that avenues for distribution and monetisation must be democratised, without gatekeeping, for domestic start-ups to thrive. The gaming industry leader's case carries on Sherman's legacy — it is one step towards a fairer field for everyone. Alwyn Didar Singh, Former Secretary to the Government of India and former Secretary General, FICCI
