A recent quirk in Google’s AI developers-powered search results has turned heads—and drawn laughter—across social media. Users on platforms like Bluesky have discovered that when they feed made-up idioms into Google’s search, the AI confidently churns out seemingly logical definitions, treating them as legitimate expressions. One example that made waves came from writer Albert Burneko, who prompted the AI with the invented phrase, “ask a six-headed mouse, get a three-legged stool.” Without hesitation, the AI responded with a meaning, suggesting that the idiom warns against seeking advice from unqualified sources.
Other fabricated idioms like “you can’t lick a badger twice,” “don’t touch my mother’s goats,” and “two cars short of a Winnebago” were all interpreted in a similarly confident—if nonsensical—manner by the search tool. These responses, while humorous, expose a deeper limitation in the AI’s ability to distinguish between genuine linguistic patterns and cleverly disguised nonsense.
AI’s Overconfidence Highlights a Fundamental Flaw
While the mishap has generated plenty of jokes online, it also underscores one of the most persistent challenges in AI development: the systems’ unearned confidence in incorrect or fabricated responses. This issue isn’t new—Google’s AI developers has previously advised users to eat rocks or offered up physically impossible recipes—but the case of the nonsense idioms shows how AI fails at something distinctly human: playing with language.
Unlike people, who can recognize absurdity and enjoy the ambiguity and rhythm of idioms, AI tends to miss the point entirely. Rather than signaling confusion or requesting clarification, the AI pushes forward with detailed definitions that, while grammatically sound, are completely divorced from reality. Its responses echo a kind of forced authority—always aiming to be right, even when the question itself is meant as a joke.
This incident brings to mind comedian John Mulaney’s well-known “horse in a hospital” metaphor. The phrase is bizarre yet evocative, creating vivid mental imagery without requiring a literal explanation. Its humor and impact come from the way humans understand nuance, metaphor, and context—traits that AI systems still struggle to emulate.
The Bigger Picture—Creativity vs. Machine Logic
At its core, this viral moment is more than a glitch; it’s a reminder of what AI lacks and what makes human communication special. Language, especially idiomatic or creative language, thrives on ambiguity, culture, and context. It evolves through shared understanding, irony, and play—things AI cannot truly grasp or replicate.
While Google’s AI developers often tout the potential for these systems to enhance creativity or generate original content, episodes like this highlight how far they are from achieving genuine human-like understanding. Instead of riffing along with a joke or engaging in creative banter, AI systems remain bound by rules, eager to produce answers—even when they miss the mark entirely.
As society increasingly integrates Google’s AI developers into everyday tools and platforms, this incident serves as a humorous but important warning: machines can mimic the structure of human language, but they still fall short in replicating its soul. Users, especially those who rely on language professionally or creatively, are reminded that the richness of communication lies in its unpredictability—something no algorithm can yet replicate.
