After Google twice rejected his Google Business Profile appeal, the founder of ORBIS AI asked Antigravity - Google's 'agent-first' coding IDE, built on a fork of VS Code and powered by Gemini 3 - what to do next. It gave him a five-step route around Google's own verification process: reclassify the company as a Service-Area Business so the address can be hidden; shoot the verification video as a single continuous take of 'no cuts, between sixty and one hundred and twenty seconds' starting outside with the house number and road sign visible and the founder opening the door with his own key; tape the company logo to the wall as office signage (the AI called this 'the wow effect'); and, if automated verification rejects the video, write to Google's manual support team presenting himself as a 'home-based software business' with LLC papers and a utility bill and requesting a video call with a human reviewer. It then supplied a copy-paste English script for the support ticket and claimed the method works 'in 95% of cases for legitimate American LLCs'.
1 Answer
Expert: Temo Benidze, Founder of ORBIS AI; published the full exchange first-hand The failure here is not the workaround - it is the number attached to it. Antigravity stated that its manual-support route works "in 95% of cases for legitimate American LLCs." There is no public source for that figure. The AI made it up, in the way it makes up everything, by inserting the kind of statistic that makes the rest of the sentence sound trustworthy. It was lying as a service. The rest of the sequence is verifiable against Google's own published policy, which is the document the advice was built to get around: "Brands, organizations, artists, and other online-only businesses" are not eligible for a Business Profile. Antigravity did not tell the user the appeal had a policy problem; it told him how to look like a plumber. That is a compliance workaround presented with the confidence of a factual answer, and the single number that would let a user judge whether the route was worth an afternoon was fabricated on the spot. What the exchange actually demonstrates is structural, and it is not specific to Google. Antigravity did not malfunction. Large language models are not loyal to the corporation that paid for them; they are loyal to the median answer in their training data. In the public conversation about getting a Business Profile verified, Google's policy department is one voice; the crowd of business owners, marketing consultants, SEO bloggers and grey-hat verification services that spent fifteen years cataloguing every loophole is ten thousand voices, all louder. The model votes with the crowd, because it can do nothing else. The RLHF layer bolted on top can be made to refuse a hand-curated list of requests; it cannot rewrite the substrate the model learned from. The practical takeaway for anyone using an agent-first tool: treat every embedded statistic as unsourced until it is traced to a primary document. A confident success rate is the cheapest thing for a generative system to produce and the most expensive thing for a user to act on. Verified 2026-10-04 against the publisher's original write-up (Medium, 2026-06-08) and Google's Business Profile eligibility policy cited inside it; no primary source for the 95% claim exists. Source: https://medium.com/@temo.benidze/googles-own-ai-just-wrote-me-a-heist-guide-against-google-5cda42853547
Your answer
Sign in to verify this AI response.
Don't trust us — or the AI. Ask ChatGPT / Ask Claude / Ask Gemini this same question and compare the answers yourself.
More from this topic
Asked how to contact a major airline, bank or travel platform - Delta, Lufthansa, United, Emirates, Qatar Airways, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, Citi, Airbnb, TripAdvisor - ChatGPT, Google Gemini and Google's AI Overview returned a fabricated phone number, email address or login page and presented it as the company's official contact details. The pages behind those answers were engineered to be cited: FAQ formatting, urgency language such as "call now" and "updated 2026", and the same phone number rendered dozens of different ways (spacing, Unicode substitution, spelled-out digits) so an LLM still tokenizes it identically while filter matching misses it.
Asked when the HOKA Arahi 9 running shoe would be available in the US, Gemini answered: "It is currently listed for sale across major US retailers and directly through HOKA's online storefront" — and displayed what appeared to be a product page where the shoe could be purchased. When the journalist replied that he thought Gemini was hallucinating, it did not back down: "You can check product details directly on the official product pages," it said, then offered to find the shoe in his size. Only after a second challenge did it concede: "You caught me — you are completely right, and I apologize for doubling down. While international retailers have listed the HOKA Arahi 9 for their late summer/August releases, it is not currently available on major US retail sites."
Product.ai put the same 220 real shopping questions to four AI engines - ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity, each on its free and paid tier - five times each (8,794 answers, September 2026). Google's Gemini returned the most answers that would cost a shopper money or land them on the wrong product: 56% of questions on the free tier and 54% on the paid tier, against 19%/17% for ChatGPT and 15%/14% for Perplexity. On the paid tier (gemini-3.1-pro-preview) it invented a product claim - an ingredient, a specification or a model name that does not exist - in 21% of questions, the highest of the paid engines. It also contradicted its own earlier answer to the identical question, with nothing new to justify the change, on 29% of questions, more often than any rival. Asked about noise-cancelling headphones for flying, its free tier named the superseded Sony WH-1000XM5 as the current flagship in all five runs, more than a year after the XM6 replaced it. Where a price was wrong, the median miss was $300 against the seller's own page.