Google Lens is coming to YouTube Shorts
YouTube Shorts is beta testing the addition of Google Lens. Integrating this tech into the short-form video platform will allow viewers to search for more information about what they can see in a clip. The functionality will begin rolling out to all Shorts users this week.
Once it's enabled on your account, the feature can be accessed by pausing the video, selecting Lens from the top menu and then tapping or highlighting an element of the clip to search about. Visual matches and search results will be overlaid on top of the Short. More details are provided in Google's support pages .
The post announcing the Lens beta notes that advertisements won't be shown in the results during the test phase. Additionally, it states that "the Lens experience isn't available for Shorts with YouTube Shopping affiliate links or with paid product promotions." While the beta test isn't going to be tied to commerce, this feels like an integration that could very likely become a Shopping-centric resource in the future.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Google search judge scrutinizes AI power in trial resolution
The federal judge who will decide how to limit Google's monopoly in search is considering its advantage in artificial intelligence too, and aiming to limit harm to the other players in the market with any resolution. On Friday in U.S. District Court in Washington, attorneys for Alphabet Inc.'s Google and the Justice Department answered Judge Amit Mehta's final questions in the government's monopoly case against the search giant. It will be up to Mehta to decide whether to break up the company and reshape the internet or impose more limited penalties. Mehta's first questions to the government focused on whether curbing Google's position in generative AI was a fitting way to address the company's dominance in search, He also mulled the possibility of Google being forced to share key data with rivals and banning it from paying to make its search engine the default on other devices. "Does the government believe that there is a market for a new search engine to emerge as we think of it today?" he asked. "Do you think somebody is going to come off the sidelines and build a new general search engine in light of what we are now seeing happen in the AI space?" "The short answer is yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist responded. "We do believe that these remedies that will be proposed will allow that opportunity to occur. The reason we are so focused on gen AI, and the reason you heard a lot of evidence about it, is because that is the new search access point." The questions focused on the Justice Department's proposal for forward-looking, long-term measures to resolve Google's conduct in the market, which Mehta ruled last year was an illegal monopoly of the online search market. Antitrust regulators have argued that Google's dominance in traditional search could extend to generative AI, which is becoming a key gateway for how users access information online. Exclusive agreements Central to the case are agreements with Apple Inc. and others in which Google pays billions of dollars annually to be the default search engine on the iPhone maker's devices. The DOJ is seeking a bar on those payments, which would also apply to Google's artificial intelligence products, including its flagship AI model, Gemini. Google's counterproposal would still allow for the company to split revenue with competing browsers. The company's lawyers have said that banning Google from competing for search distribution contracts only serves to help large rivals like Microsoft at the expense of consumers, browser companies and device makers. Mehta told the DOJ that if he were to cut off Google's payments to Apple, Mozilla and others to distribute its search engine, it would cause widespread market harm. "Every single distribution partner said, 'This would harm us.' Some have gone so far to suggest this would put them out of business," Mehta said. "Is that an acceptable outcome, to fix one market and harm others?" he asked, referring to the browser and device maker industries. "That's a fair question," Dahlquist replied. But "that is asking the court to put private interests ahead of the public interest." He added that the government does not "dispute the possibility of some private impact." Mehta asked if it would work to create any exceptions to the payment ban, a possibility Dahlquist rejected, saying that even Apple's Eddy Cue wasn't fully opposed to the government's proposals. Apple stands to lose tens of billions of dollars in annual payments from Google if the DOJ's proposals are to be adopted and revenue sharing is paused for the next 10 years. "I think you're right that Mr. Cue wants more choice and he may be willing to be paid less money" for more choice, Mehta responded. "I just don't know whether he wants to live in a world where he can't get paid anything for no choice." The company's lead lawyer John Schmidtlein objected to any payment ban. "Banning the payments here would not be addressing the unlawful conduct," he said. "It would not be connected to the violation in this case." Existential threat AI chatbots are already seen as an existential threat to traditional search engines, as they can address users' questions directly with AI-drafted responses - replacing the need to present people with a long list of search results pointing across the web. Google has argued that the government's proposals are too extreme, saying they would hurt American consumers and the economy, as well as weaken U.S. technological leadership. Google argues that it is the market leader in search because of more than 20 years of innovation. It says people use its service because it is the best. Schmidtlein asserted on Friday that the court should focus on addressing the specific conduct found to be illegal, rather than imposing extensive remedies - including on Google's generative AI products - that he said could fundamentally restructure the market. But Mehta also appeared skeptical of the tech giant's argument for more limited remedies, indicating he is seriously considering including AI-related measures in his decision. "It seems to me that to simply say, 'look, just open up the avenues of distribution,' without providing any further remedies that are forward-looking and that would allow competitors to actually be rivals here, sells the remedy portion of this short," Mehta commented. Schmidtlein countered that gen AI products are not in the relevant market for search. "There is no evidence that gen AI products have been harmed by any of the conduct issue in this case," he said. "They couldn't have been, they weren't around, right?" Perplexity, OpenAI As the trial unfolded in April and May, some representatives from AI companies told the court they are already being stymied by Google. Perplexity's Dmitry Shevelenko testified that Google's contract with Lenovo Group Ltd.'s Motorola blocked the smartphone maker from setting Perplexity as the default assistant on its new devices. Motorola "can't get out of their Google obligations and so they are unable to change the default assistant on the device," the Perplexity executive said. Representatives of two prominent AI startups - OpenAI and Perplexity AI - also testified their companies would be interested in buying Chrome if Google were forced to divest it. Much of the discussion in the first part of the day focused on what data, and how much of it Google would be forced to syndicate to rivals so they can build their own search engines. Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai testified in April that the Justice Department's proposal to share search data with rivals constituted a "de facto" divestiture of the company's search engine. On Friday, Mehta told government lawyer Dahlquist that he is "not looking to kneecap Google" but to instead bolster potential competitors. "We are trying to kickstart competitors, we are not trying to put them on equal footing on day one." ___ Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
據報 Google Lens 即將可於 YouTube Shorts 中使用
平時在看短片時看到感興趣的東西，小編的做法是立刻暫停再 screen cap，方便記下外貌又或者型號，再用 Google Lens將物品搜尋出來。不過大家在未來就不用再截圖才用 Google Lens 搜尋。據報 YouTube Shorts 正測試加入 Google Lens 的功能，令用戶可以更輕鬆地搜尋影片中的內容以獲取更多相關資訊。 這項功能預計本週開始向所有 Shorts 用戶推送，當啟用後用戶可在暫停影片時，從上方選單中選擇 Google Lens，然後點擊或圈起影片中需要的元素再去搜尋。搜尋結果與視覺比對結果會直接在 Shorts 畫面上以疊加的方式去顯示，令用戶更清楚是否有正確搜尋出來。 在宣布 Lens 會推出測試版的 YouTube 說明頁面中的公告指出，由於Lens in Shorts正處於測試階段，用戶不會在搜尋結果中看到廣告。此外，公告亦提到「Lens 體驗不適用於含有 YouTube 購物聯盟連結或付費產品推廣的 Shorts」。雖然這次的測試版暫時不見商業化元素，但相信未來幾可肯定會有廣告上的合作關連，畢竟YouTube 的廣告收入相當龐大，Google 絕不會看漏這條財路吧。 更多內容： Engadget YouTube 說明頁面 緊貼最新科技資訊、網購優惠，追隨 Yahoo Tech 各大社交平台！ 🎉📱 Tech Facebook： 🎉📱 Tech Instagram： 🎉📱 Tech WhatsApp 社群： 🎉📱 Tech WhatsApp 頻道： 🎉📱 Tech Telegram 頻道：
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge wrestles with far-reaching remedy proposals in US antitrust case against Google
WASHINGTON (AP) — The fate and fortunes of one of the world's most powerful tech companies now sit in the hands of a U.S. judge wrestling with whether to impose far-reaching changes upon Google in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared an illegal monopoly. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta heard closing arguments Friday from Justice Department lawyers who argued that a radical shake-up is needed to promote a free and fair market. Their proposed remedies include a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google's legal team argued that only minor concessions are needed and urged Mehta not to unduly punish the company with a harsh ruling that could squelch future innovations. Google also argued that upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already is reshaping the search landscape, as conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. It was an argument that Mehta appeared to give serious consideration as he marveled at the speed at which the AI industry was growing. He also indicated he was still undecided on how much AI's potential to shake up the search market should be incorporated in his forthcoming ruling. 'This is what I've been struggling with,' Mehta said. Mehta spoke frequently at Friday's hearing, often asking probing and pointed questions to lawyers for both sides, while hinting that he was seeking a middle ground between the two camps' proposed remedies. 'We're not looking to kneecap Google,' the judge said, adding that the goal was to 'kickstart' competitors' ability to challenge the search giant's dominance. Mehta will spend much of the summer mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labor Day. Google has already vowed to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it can't take until the judge orders a remedy. Google's attorney John Schmidtlein asked Mehta to put a 60-day delay on implementing any proposed changes, which Justice prosecutor David Dahlquist immediately objected to. 'We believe the market's waited long enough,' Dahlquist said. While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself won't rein in Google's power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at $2 trillion. Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine i nto an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity. The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAi and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale. The debate over Google's fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups. Apple, which collects more than $20 billion annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might even make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban wouldn't compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department's proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company's business. Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal that would require Google to share its data with rival search engines 'does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship' of their personal information. Mehta said Friday that compared to some of the Justice Department's other proposals, there was 'less speculation' about what might happen in the broader market if Google were forced to divest of Chrome. Schmidtlein said that was untrue, and such a ruling would be a wild overreach. 'I think that would be inequitable in the extreme,' he said. Dahlquist mocked some of the arguments against divesting Chrome. 'Google thinks it's the only one who can invest things,' he said.
