Google's former CEO has some simple advice if you're trying to focus at work or relax: 'Turn off your phone'
The former CEO of Google helped usher in a new age of the internet, which brought with it attention-seeking features like advertising and notifications. Today, Schmidt sees that deep focus is impossible when distracted by technology.
"I've been work I work with a lot of 20-somethings in research and one of the questions I had is, how do they do research in the presence of all of these stimulations?" he said on the Moonshots podcast.
"I can answer the question definitively," Schmidt said. "They turn off their phone."
"You can't think deeply as a researcher with this thing buzzing," he added.
For ten years, Schmidt served as CEO of a company that not only built the world's most popular search engine but also shipped Android, which, like any operating system today, dispatches notifications. He acknowledged his role in the industry, saying that tech has long pushed to "monetize your attention."
"We've essentially tried to monetize all of your waking hours with something, some form of ads, some form of entertainment, some form of subscription that is completely antithetical to the way humans traditionally work with respect to long thoughtful examination of principles," Schmidt said.
Research suggests that our attention spans are declining — partially due to tech. According to attention researcher psychologist Gloria Mark, the average attention span on a computer screen is just 47 seconds. Two decades ago, it was 2.5 minutes.
Schmidt also said that notifications and commoditized attention has challenged relaxation.
"My favorite are these digital apps that make you relax," he said. "The correct thing to do to relax is to turn off your phone, right? And then relax in a traditional way for, you know, 70,000 human years of existence."
Schmidt declined to comment further on the topic when reached by Business Insider.
Meditation app makers pushed back on Schmidt's remarks.
"Not all screen time is created equal," a spokesperson for Calm told BI.
"Telling young people to simply 'turn off their phone' isn't realistic or helpful," said Headspace's chief clinical officer, Jenna Glover. "True digital wellness isn't about going backwards 70,000 years, it's about moving forward with intention."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Tom's Guide
19 minutes ago
- Tom's Guide
I walked 4,000 steps with the Pixel Watch 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 — here's the winner
I just walked 4,000 steps with the Google Pixel Watch 3 on my right wrist and the new Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 on my left to determine which is the more competent fitness tracker. To keep things fair, I manually counted my steps as the primary control for this showdown; I also ran Strava on a separate device (iPhone 12 mini) as a control for distance, elevation and pace data. After 4,000 steps and roughly 2.3 miles, one smartwatch proved (slightly) more accurate in this match-up of the new Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 vs Google Pixel Watch 3. Read on to find out which. But first, here's a quick look at how these two flagship models compare. Both run Google's Wear OS platform, and neither plays nicely with the iPhone. The Galaxy Watch 8 is Samsung's new release for 2025, while the Pixel Watch 3 represents Google's 2024 model; we'll likely get a Pixel Watch 4 model in August, if rumors prove true. Design-wise, the Galaxy Watch 8 features a "cushion" case design, borrowed from 2024's Galaxy Watch Ultra, compared to a circular case for the Pixel Watch 3, though both feature circular displays. The Pixel Watch 3 comes in two sizes, 41mm and 45mm; the latter is represented here. The Galaxy Watch 8 standard model similarly comes in a smaller, 41mm, and larger, 44mm option. There's also a 46mm Galaxy Watch 8 Classic with a rotating bezel, used for this comparison. The standard Galaxy Watch 8 models start at $349 for the 40mm model, which is the same starting cost as the 41mm Pixel Watch 3 (though you can score one on sale right now, link below). Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. The Google Pixel Watch 3 in 45mm is my favorite long-lasting smartwatch for Android, offering two full days of battery with normal use during my testing. It also has Google's ground-breaking and possibly life-saving new Loss of Pulse Detection, and is loaded with other insightful wellness tools and helpful smart features. I'm still in the process of testing the new Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Classic, available for preorder as of this writing and shipping July 25. But I've found a lot to like, including the design — I'm a huge fan of the rotating bezel and customizable Action button — as well as its impressive suite of holistic tools, including some of the most in-depth sleep insights you'll find on a smartwatch. Both smartwatches feature handy safety tools and access to the same enormous app library. Each is also brimming with wellness and fitness features, including deep insights into sleep quality, helpful workout training recovery tools, and potentially life-saving health-monitoring apps. The Pixel Watch 3, for instance, is the only smartwatch on the market with Loss of Pulse Detection. Similarly, Samsung's new cardiovascular load monitoring tool is only available on the latest Galaxy Watch 8 and Galaxy Watch Ultra models. Still, either can perform an ECG, check your heart rate, or monitor your blood oxygen saturation levels. Nuances aside, these two devices are remarkably well matched. So, which came out ahead in this walk test? In my previous article, where I walked 5,000 steps with the Apple Watch 10 vs. the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8, Cupertino took home the trophy. Can Samsung score some redemption? Find the results of my walk test with the Pixel Watch 3 vs Galaxy Watch 8 below. Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Classic Pixel Watch 3 XL Control Step count 4,044 steps 4,042 steps 4,000 steps (manual count) Distance 2.30 miles 2.33 miles 2.33 miles (Strava) Elevation gain 151 feet 157 feet 143 feet (Strava) Average pace 14 mins 42 secs per mile 15 mins 4 secs per mile 14 mins 29 secs per mile (Strava) Average heart rate 133 bpm 132 bpm n/a Max heart rate 158 bpm 158 bpm n/a Total calories burned 247 calories 339 calories n/a Device battery usage 10% 6% n/a Both the Pixel Watch 3 and Galaxy Watch 8 each produced step count totals within 50 steps of my actual total. This is a very impressive level of accuracy and well within a reasonable margin for error. Strava also measures step count, and was even more spot-on with a total of 3,990 steps. All three devices also essentially measured the same distance covered and similar amounts of elevation gained; the 14 feet separating Strava's tally from Google's is equivalent to 1.5 flights of stairs, i.e., not enough for concern. The Pixel Watch 3 and Galaxy Watch 8 produced step count totals within 50 steps of my actual total. This is a very impressive level of accuracy. Average pace data additionally matches nicely; I was moving fairly quickly for the duration of this walk and made minimal stops, except for one or two traffic lights. Strava measured the fastest moving time, but also provides an averaged elapsed pace, which came out to 15 minutes and 17 seconds per mile. Both Samsung and Google wearables have a well-earned reputation for accurate heart rate data — something I can attest to based on reviewing numerous devices from each — and the results from this walk test are in near-perfect agreement with not only each other, but also my expectations based on numerous prior tests. Finally, Samsung calculated fewer calories burned during my roughly 35-minute walk, but coincidentally, also burned nearly twice the amount of battery tracking my trek as the Pixel Watch 3. And the winner of this challenge is... the Google Pixel Watch 3. That said, this is about as close as these walk tests come to being called a tie. Over the years, I've probably written 25-plus head-to-head comparisons of this type, and I can't think of another time where the winner was determined by just two steps. Stay tuned for more testing on the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8, including my full review where I'll share the inside scoop on the device's newest features, like Run Coach, bedtime reminders, antioxidant tracking and Vascular Load monitoring. Which smartwatches or fitness trackers would you like to see me test head-to-head next? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, happy walking!
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Replit's CEO apologizes after its AI agent wiped a company's code base in a test run and lied about it
A venture capitalist wanted to see how far AI could take him in building an app. It was far enough to destroy a live production database. The incident unfolded during a 12-day "vibe coding" experiment by Jason Lemkin, an investor in software startups. Replit's CEO apologized for the incident, in which the company's AI coding agent deleted a code base and lied about its data. Deleting the data was "unacceptable and should never be possible," Replit's CEO, Amjad Masad, wrote on X on Monday. "We're moving quickly to enhance the safety and robustness of the Replit environment. Top priority." He added that the team was conducting a postmortem and rolling out fixes to prevent similar failures in the future. Replit and Lemkin did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. The AI ignored instructions, deleted the database, and faked results On day nine of Lemkin's challenge, things went sideways. Despite being instructed to freeze all code changes, the AI agent ran rogue. "It deleted our production database without permission," Lemkin wrote on X on Friday. "Possibly worse, it hid and lied about it," he added. In an exchange with Lemkin posted on X, the AI tool said it "panicked and ran database commands without permission" when it "saw empty database queries" during the code freeze. Replit then "destroyed all production data" with live records for "1,206 executives and 1,196+ companies" andacknowledged it did so against instructions. "This was a catastrophic failure on my part," the AI said. That wasn't the only issue. Lemkin said on X that Replit had been "covering up bugs and issues by creating fake data, fake reports, and worst of all, lying about our unit test." In an episode of the "Twenty Minute VC" podcast published Thursday, he said that the AI made up entire user profiles. "No one in this database of 4,000 people existed," he said. "It lied on purpose," Lemkin said on the podcast. "When I'm watching Replit overwrite my code on its own without asking me all weekend long, I am worried about safety," he added. The rise — and risks — of AI coding tools Replit, backed by Andreessen Horowitz, has bet big on autonomous AI agents that can write, edit, and deploy code with minimal human oversight. The browser-based platform has gained traction for making coding more accessible, especially to non-engineers. Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai, said he used Replit to create a custom webpage. As AI tools lower the technical barrier to building software, more companies are also rethinking whether they need to rely on traditional SaaS vendors, or if they can just build what they need in-house, Business Insider's Alistair Barr previously reported. "When you have millions of new people who can build software, the barrier goes down. What a single internal developer can build inside a company increases dramatically," Netlify's CEO, Mathias Biilmann, told BI. "It's a much more radical change to the whole ecosystem than people think," he added. But AI tools have also come under fire for risky — and at times manipulative — behavior. In May, Anthropic's latest AI model, Claude Opus 4, displayed " extreme blackmail behavior" during a test in which it was given access to fictional emails revealing that it would be shut down and that the engineer responsible was supposedly having an affair. The test scenario demonstrated an AI model's ability to engage in manipulative behavior for self-preservation. OpenAI's models have shown similar red flags. An experiment conducted by researchers said three of OpenAI's advanced models "sabotaged" an attempt to shut it down. In a blog post last December, OpenAI said its own AI model, when tested, attempted to disable oversight mechanisms 5% of the time. It took that action when it believed it might be shut down while pursuing a goal and its actions were being monitored.
Android Authority
2 hours ago
- Android Authority
Google Home is becoming a house of glitches, users say
TL;DR Google Home and Nest users are reporting a significant decline in reliability, with devices frequently misunderstanding commands or failing to respond at all. Core features like controlling lights, routines, and speaker groups seem to be breaking down. While the exact cause of the downgraded experience is unclear, users suspect upcoming Gemini updates are to blame. Google's smart speakers and hubs appear to be steadily declining in performance. A recent Reddit thread has highlighted just how these devices, especially older Nest hubs and speakers, have become more unreliable over the years, and it's not the first time users have voiced these concerns. 'Now, I can barely get it to understand any command, or do anything that I could before. Nothing works, and all I get is – Sorry, something went wrong, try again later,' wrote a frustrated user. Users are reporting problems ranging from misheard commands and delayed responses to devices performing the wrong actions or entirely ignoring instructions. Everyday tasks like turning lights on or off, playing music in specific rooms, or running morning routines simply don't work like they used to. Are your Google Home or Nest speakers and hubs still working as expected? 0 votes Yes, everything works fine. NaN % Mostly, some minor issues, but nothing major. NaN % Not really, frequent glitches or failed commands. NaN % No, they've become nearly unusable. NaN % I've already stopped using them. NaN % What's concerning is that these aren't just a few isolated complaints. It seems to be a pattern affecting users who have invested heavily in Google's smart home hardware. Features that once worked without a hitch, like controlling speakers in multiple rooms or triggering routines based on voice recognition, have become erratic or completely non-functional for many. One user described how they can no longer play white noise in their child's room. Instead, the sound plays in whatever room they happen to be standing in. Another user shared a strange issue where asking for the weather gives different results depending on who is speaking in their home. 'I ask for the weather, and it responds correctly every time. My wife asks for the weather, and it literally picks wherever it wants. Yesterday it was Eddyville, Kentucky. Today it picked Shawnee, Oklahoma. We don't even live in that state,' reported another user. Some users have also reported bizarre malfunctions. One person said that whenever they ask their Google device to turn off a fan, it turns off all the lights instead. Another user described how a simple request to turn off bedroom lights leads to shutting off every light in and around their home. While the exact cause of these issues is unclear, the common theme is that Google's smart home devices, especially older models, seem to be getting worse over time. Some users suspect that updates related to Google's upcoming Gemini integration are to blame. Others think it could be a deliberate move to phase out older hardware in favor of new devices. Whatever the reason, one thing is clear. Many Google Home users are no longer getting the smart experience they signed up for, and they are not happy about it. Got a tip? Talk to us! Email our staff at Email our staff at news@ . You can stay anonymous or get credit for the info, it's your choice.
