Technologies

Google’s AI Overviews Explain Made-Up Idioms With Confident Nonsense

The latest meme around generative AI’s hallucinations proves you can’t lick a badger twice.

Language can seem almost infinitely complex, with inside jokes and idioms sometimes having meaning for just a small group of people and appearing meaningless to the rest of us. Thanks to generative AI, even the meaningless found meaning this week as the internet blew up like a brook trout over the ability of Google search’s AI Overviews to define phrases never before uttered.

What, you’ve never heard the phrase “blew up like a brook trout”? Sure, I just made it up, but Google’s AI overviews result told me it’s a “colloquial way of saying something exploded or became a sensation quickly,” likely referring to the eye-catching colors and markings of the fish. No, it doesn’t make sense.

The trend may have started on Threads, where the author and screenwriter Meaghan Wilson Anastasios shared what happened when she searched “peanut butter platform heels.” Google returned a result referencing a (not real) scientific experiment in which peanut butter was used to demonstrate the creation of diamonds under high pressure.

It moved to other social media sites, like Bluesky, where people shared Google’s interpretations of phrases like “you can’t lick a badger twice.” The game: Search for a novel, nonsensical phrase with “meaning” at the end.

Things rolled on from there.

This meme is interesting for more reasons than comic relief. It shows how large language models might strain to provide an answer that sounds correct, not one that is correct.

“They are designed to generate fluent, plausible-sounding responses, even when the input is completely nonsensical,” said Yafang Li, assistant professor at the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at the University of Memphis. “They are not trained to verify the truth. They are trained to complete the sentence.”

Like glue on pizza

The fake meanings of made-up sayings bring back memories of the all too true stories about Google’s AI Overviews giving incredibly wrong answers to basic questions — like when it suggested putting glue on pizza to help the cheese stick.

This trend seems at least a bit more harmless because it doesn’t center on actionable advice. I mean, I for one hope nobody tries to lick a badger once, much less twice. The problem behind it, however, is the same — a large language model, like Google’s Gemini behind AI Overviews, tries to answer your questions and offer a feasible response. Even if what it gives you is nonsense.

A Google spokesperson said AI Overviews are designed to display information supported by top web results, and that they have an accuracy rate comparable to other search features.

“When people do nonsensical or ‘false premise’ searches, our systems will try to find the most relevant results based on the limited web content available,” the Google spokesperson said. “This is true of search overall, and in some cases, AI Overviews will also trigger in an effort to provide helpful context.”

This particular case is a “data void,” where there isn’t a lot of relevant information available for the search query. The spokesperson said Google is working on limiting when AI Overviews appear on searches without enough information and preventing them from providing misleading, satirical or unhelpful content. Google uses information about queries like these to better understand when AI Overviews should and should not appear.

You won’t always get a made-up definition if you ask for the meaning of a fake phrase. When drafting the heading of this section, I searched “like glue on pizza meaning,” and it didn’t trigger an AI Overview.

The problem doesn’t appear to be universal across LLMs. I asked ChatGPT for the meaning of “you can’t lick a badger twice” and it told me the phrase “isn’t a standard idiom, but it definitely sounds like the kind of quirky, rustic proverb someone might use.” It did, though, try to offer a definition anyway, essentially: “If you do something reckless or provoke danger once, you might not survive to do it again.”

Read more: AI Essentials: 27 Ways to Make Gen AI Work for You, According to Our Experts

Pulling meaning out of nowhere

This phenomenon is an entertaining example of LLMs’ tendency to make stuff up — what the AI world calls “hallucinating.” When a gen AI model hallucinates, it produces information that sounds like it could be plausible or accurate but isn’t rooted in reality.

LLMs are “not fact generators,” Li said, they just predict the next logical bits of language based on their training.

A majority of AI researchers in a recent survey reported they doubt AI’s accuracy and trustworthiness issues would be solved soon.

The fake definitions show not just the inaccuracy but the confident inaccuracy of LLMs. When you ask a person for the meaning of a phrase like “you can’t get a turkey from a Cybertruck,” you probably expect them to say they haven’t heard of it and that it doesn’t make sense. LLMs often react with the same confidence as if you’re asking for the definition of a real idiom.

In this case, Google says the phrase means Tesla’s Cybertruck “is not designed or capable of delivering Thanksgiving turkeys or other similar items” and highlights “its distinct, futuristic design that is not conducive to carrying bulky goods.” Burn.

This humorous trend does have an ominous lesson: Don’t trust everything you see from a chatbot. It might be making stuff up out of thin air, and it won’t necessarily indicate it’s uncertain.

“This is a perfect moment for educators and researchers to use these scenarios to teach people how the meaning is generated and how AI works and why it matters,” Li said. “Users should always stay skeptical and verify claims.”

Be careful what you search for

Since you can’t trust an LLM to be skeptical on your behalf, you need to encourage it to take what you say with a grain of salt.

“When users enter a prompt, the model just assumes it’s valid and then proceeds to generate the most likely accurate answer for that,” Li said.

The solution is to introduce skepticism in your prompt. Don’t ask for the meaning of an unfamiliar phrase or idiom. Ask if it’s real. Li suggested you ask “is this a real idiom?”

“That may help the model to recognize the phrase instead of just guessing,” she said.

Technologies

Trump says MAGA Inc. PAC will pay for controversial TV ads that government funded

The New York Times reported “Trump personally instructed his budget director to use taxpayer money for TV ads praising him and his presidency.”

President Donald Trump said Monday evening that he and his political action committee will pay for controversial television ads that praised him, and which reportedly were funded from up to $20 million set aside by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The White House later clarified that the super PAC — MAGA Inc. — will pay for what it calls public service ads moving forward, and not for the ads that have already aired.

Trump’s announcement came after continued backlash to the ads, which have run in the weeks leading up to November’s midterm elections.

Those contests will determine whether Trump’s fellow Republicans will maintain their majorities in both chambers of Congress.

Critics say the ads mirror Republican campaign talking points. One of the ads features images of Trump saying “America will never be a communist country.”

“The Radical Left is upset with the fact that I am taking Ads, which I consider to be a positive promotion for our Great U.S.A., and paying for them with U.S.A. money,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Monday.

“This is a rather standard thing to do but, rather than doing that, although nothing will make them happy, I have decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc.,” Trump said.

AdImpact has tracked roughly $9.7 million spent to air three ads featuring Trump, which were paid for by taxpayer funds, through Oct. 5.

Trump’s announcement came three days after The New York Times, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that “Trump personally instructed his budget director to use taxpayer money for TV ads praising him and his presidency.”

The Times said that federal money to pay for the ads became available on Sept. 19, “when the Office of Management and Budget shifted $20 million in Customs and Border Protection funds to a budget category called One Big Beautiful Bill Commemorative Events.” Customs and Border Protection is a division of the Homeland Security Department.

Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., in a Sept. 24 letter to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, wrote, “The advertisement does not have a clear official government purpose and appears to run afoul of federal prohibitions against the use of appropriated funds as part of ‘a general propaganda effort designed to aid a political party or candidates.’”

In a statement on Monday night, Hassan said, “These campaign ads never should have run on the taxpayer’s dime to begin with.”

“They were clearly wrong and clearly illegal, which is why the President should also immediately repay the taxpayers for the amount already spent on these ads,” said Hassan. “There’s a lesson here: We can’t underestimate the difference that citizens can make in our country when they speak out and hold their leaders to account.”

Last week, the advocacy group Public Citizen filed a complaint urging the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and TV broadcasters to stop airing the ads. Public Citizen previously asked the Government Accountability Office and Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether the ads violated federal propaganda restrictions and the Hatch Act.

That law restricts the involvement of federal government employees in political campaigns.

A White House spokesperson defended the ads in a statement in late September to CNBC, calling them “public service announcements” intended to remind “Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad.”

“The ad is educational and unapologetically patriotic. We should be proud of our country,” the spokesperson said.

MAGA Inc. has raised $424.4 million and spent $32.4 million during the 2025-26 cycle through Aug. 31, leaving the Trump Super PAC with $415.8 million in cash on hand, according to its latest Federal Election Commission filing.

MAGA Inc. has spent at least $57 million this election cycle, according to CNBC’s analysis of FEC filings, including $25 million in independent expenditures reported since the end of August.

— CNBC’s Luke Fountain contributed to this article

Technologies

Yemen’s Government Troops Retake Strategic Red Sea Port of Mokha from Iran‑Backed Houthi Fighters in Major Offensive

Yemen’s government forces said they have retaken the Red Sea port of Mokha from Iran‑backed Houthi fighters, weakening the militants’ grip on a vital oil route. The advance came as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan pledged joint deterrence measures to counter Houthi attacks.

Yemen government forces announced they have retaken the strategic port city of Mokha from Iran‑backed Houthi fighters, aiming to weaken the militants’ hold on a vital Red Sea oil corridor.

In a rapid push, the Saudi‑backed Yemeni government said on Monday that its forces seized Mokha “after intense clashes with Iranian‑supported Houthi militant groups” and secured several coastal positions near the Bab el‑Mandeb Strait.

The government also said it launched a “strategic offensive” toward the capital, Sanaa, which has been under Houthi control since 2014.

Verum could not independently verify the claims. The Houthis have reportedly denied that Mokha has fallen.

Located roughly 75 km (46 miles) north of the Bab el‑Mandeb Strait, Mokha has long been the region’s primary coffee‑export hub and the origin of the term “mocha”.

Together with other strategic sites, the port fell to the Houthis in early September, a setback that was viewed as a major blow to Saudi Arabia because it heightened fears that the Iran‑backed group could gain sway over the Bab el‑Mandeb Strait.

Iran’s shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, another crucial oil artery on the opposite side of the Arabian Peninsula, has already disrupted energy markets and sent ripples through the global economy.

On Monday, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan agreed to enact “deterrence measures” and to swiftly deploy troops to bolster the oil‑rich kingdom and counter Houthi attacks in Yemen.

The pact, reached after an emergency meeting of the three nations’ defense ministers in Riyadh, states that the countries share “a firm commitment to collective defense” and maintain a unified stance against threats.

Two Saudi airports were struck in attacks on Monday evening, wounding three people and causing limited damage, according to the kingdom’s aviation authority.

In a Tuesday‑morning social‑media statement, Saudi Arabia’s General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) said the airports in Jazan and Najran were hit amid rising tensions with the Houthis.

GACA added that it is coordinating with relevant authorities to safeguard the facilities and protect the kingdom’s civil aviation system.

Energy market nervousness ‘likely to persist’

Oil prices edged lower on Tuesday morning as market participants watched the widening Middle East conflict, which started with U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran in late February.

International benchmark Brent

“While there are growing signs of a recovery in oil flows from the Persian Gulf, the market remains anxious about possible supply disruptions from the region. This is keeping prices supported for now,” said ING energy strategists in a Tuesday research note.

“Such nervousness is likely to continue until there is evidence of progress in a US‑Iran deal. Meanwhile, the risk of further escalation remains very real,” they added.

Technologies

Russia plague: What we know about the suspected case reportedly linked to a lab worker’s death

According to local media reports, as many as 189 people have also been placed under medical observation in Irkutsk in eastern Russia.

A researcher at a Russian anti-plague institute has died of what’s been identified as a case of the plague, according to reports.

Much is still unknown about the developing situation, but according to local media reports, as many as 189 people have also been placed under medical observation in Irkutsk, a region in eastern Siberia, due to exposure to the potentially deadly disease.

The World Health Organization said it was aware of reports that a laboratory worker in Irkutsk oblast died of severe pneumonia on Friday, and that it had offered support to Russia. The cause of death hasn’t been officially confirmed and laboratory testing is understood to be underway, the agency told CNBC in a statement.

“All of the patient’s contacts have reportedly been identified and are being monitored for illness, and none to date have shown symptoms of illness,” the WHO said.

What is the plague and how does it spread?

Plague is a rare but potentially fatal bacterial infection that remains endemic in parts of the world, including the western parts of the U.S., but can be treated with antibiotics if identified quickly. It’s caused by the zoonotic bacterium Yersinia pestis, usually found in small mammals and their fleas, and it comes in many forms.

Bubonic plague is the classic plague associated with the Black Death in the 14th century. Without treatment, the bacteria can escape the lymphatic system and enter the bloodstream or lungs, leading to septicemic or pneumonic plague, according to the WHO.

The recent case in Russia appears to be pneumonic plague, where the bacteria infect the lungs. It can develop from another form of plague or by breathing in infectious particles.

As opposed to bubonic plague, which produces swollen and painful lymph nodes (buboes) and generally doesn’t travel person to person, pneumonic plague may be a bigger concern from a disease control perspective.

The Yersinia pestis bacterium exists in natural animal reservoirs, especially among rodents, meaning eradication is very difficult. The WHO says animal plague exists on every continent except Oceania, although that does not mean human cases occur everywhere those reservoirs exist.

“Potentially this lab-acquired case of pneumonic plague could be transmitted by the respiratory route,” Brendan Wren, professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, told CNBC. “Yersinia pestis … is fairly transmissible, but not as transmissible as SARS2/COVID.”

What’s happening with the suspected case in Russia?

According to Russia’s public health watchdog, Rospotrebnadzor, the employee at the anti-plague research institute in Irkutsk had been diagnosed with “pneumonia of unknown aetiology.” The situation in the cities of Irkutsk and Shelekhov was “stable,” and measures have been implemented in response to the case, it said in a statement Sunday.

Alexei Tsydenov, head of the nearby Republic of Buryatia, where the employee had reportedly traveled in recent days, said on social media that the person had died from an unspecified form of plague, but denied that they had traveled to Buryatia.

CNBC has not been able to independently verify the reports. The Russian Ministry of Health didn’t immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

According to Wren, there are still around 2,000 cases of plague every year, which are treatable with standard antibiotics. “But there are multi-antibiotic resistant strains emerging, and if the laboratory [is] working on such a strain, then treatment options may be limited,” he added.

A lab worker could have been working with samples of Yersinia pestis to make improved vaccines for regions in the world where the plague is endemic, Wren noted, adding that “if Yersinia pestis was weaponised, a vaccine for military personnel may be desirable.”

Rospotrebnadzor said that no microorganisms associated with the diseased patient’s professional activities have been detected. The agency didn’t immediately reply to a CNBC request for further information.

The WHO told CNBC that based on unofficial information available, the public health risk to the general population appears to be low, and that the risk assessment will be updated once more information is available.

— CNBC’s Jenny Lee contributed to this report.