Michael Calore experimented with Google’s new AI chatbot, Gemini 2.0, to generate a workout plan and recipes. He requested a bodyweight workout and Gemini provided a standard routine including squats, lunges, planks, and glute bridges, along with advice on progressive overload and rest days. When Calore asked for guidance on performing lunges, Gemini offered links to YouTube videos, two of which were duplicates. While he found the workout plan itself to be solid and intends to continue using it, Calore expressed concern about Gemini’s lack of sourcing. He noted that the information provided could easily be found through a basic Google search and the chatbot offered no attribution for its recommendations. This lack of transparency raised questions about the origin of the information and the potential for uncredited use of existing content.
Calore also used Gemini to generate recipes, but he found this aspect less helpful. While he admitted that the recipes were adequate, he felt no need to utilize them again, given his existing culinary experience and resources. He considered the quinoa salad Gemini suggested as an example, offering to make it for his colleagues, but the offer was politely declined. This illustrates that while Gemini can provide basic, functional information, it may not offer much value to individuals with pre-existing knowledge or expertise in a particular area.
The overall assessment of Gemini 2.0’s utility in this context was mixed. Calore acknowledged that for individuals new to fitness or considering lifestyle changes, Gemini’s advice could be quite helpful. The structured workout plan and access to instructional videos could provide a good starting point. However, for experienced individuals like Calore, the chatbot offered little beyond readily available information.
The central issue surrounding Gemini’s performance was its lack of transparency. The absence of source citations for both the workout plan and the recipes raised concerns about intellectual property and the potential for plagiarism. This lack of attribution not only obscures the origins of the information but also prevents users from verifying its credibility or exploring related content. It also raises ethical questions about the use and repurposing of existing content without proper acknowledgment.
The anecdote about the YouTube links further highlights potential issues with Gemini’s information gathering process.
