For those that haven't seen, two massive vulnerabilities in PHP were disclosed yesterday, and since I work with PHP at my day job I've been reading into the CVE's.

I knew they were discovered with the assistance of AI, but what I didn't expect was the security firm who disclosed the vulns to credit Gemini 4 Argon so heavily. I'm honestly pretty surprised by this, not in a bad way, but in a "oh dang, that's kind of crazy" kind of way.

We used Wiz Atlas, Gemini 4 Argon and GPT-5.6 Sol throughout this research. Notably, Gemini 4 Argon made an invaluable contribution to finding the vulnerability, exploit development, attack detection, and validation of the patch.

I subscribe to Pro so I've had it for a week or so, but I really haven't used it for any software development assistance like I have Claude, which I get from my job. Might have to actually let it try some development, now. I've gotten terrible code from 3.1 Pro and 3.5/6/7/8 Flash too much though, so I'm still hesitant. We'll see haha

EDIT: I had no idea that Alphabet owns Wiz. I literally just read the article and thought “hmm, that’s cool” and posted it. Still, it’s an interesting read.

Hey r/GeminiAi, If you are on an annual AI Plus plan, check your emails. Google is removing access to the Gemini Pro model starting November 13. If you paid for an ANNUAL subscription like I did, they are essentially taking away the core feature we already paid for mid-cycle. I live in Quebec, and under our Consumer Protection Act, a merchant cannot legally and unilaterally modify the essential elements of a prepaid, fixed-term contract. I’ve already escalated a ticket to their higher-level support team demanding a complimentary upgrade to the Pro tier for the remainder of my billing cycle to honor the contract. Don't let them downgrade your prepaid service without a fight. Is anyone else opening tickets for this? Let's make some noise. Here is the link to Google's article: https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/17004136

OpenAI and Google Cloud just announced a partnership, and both companies confirmed that OpenAI models will soon be available in Google Antigravity.

https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/google-cloud-brings-openai-models-to-customers

If you are based in France and got Google oogle AI Pro through a promotion (Pixel device bundle, student pass, partner trial), check your access to Google Antigravity.

Multiple promotional subscribers are reporting that they cannot access Gemini 4 Argon inside Antigravity because the platform flags their account as not being an active "paid user" effectively treating an officially activated Pro subscription as a second-class tier.

Here is the issue:

• Promotional terms: The terms of service state that promotional periods grant the exact same plan tier and benefits as standard paying customers.
• The lock-out: Restricting flagship features or models like Gemini 4 Argon exclusively to users paying directly via monthly credit card charges while blocking users whose subscription was provided via a hardware purchase or promotional package contradicts the contract.
• Consumer law: Under French law (Code de la consommation) and EU consumer rules, advertising and bundling a specific subscription level with a product (like a smartphone or student pass ) and then silently gating core tier benefits behind a "non-paying account" restriction constitutes a deceptive commercial practice (pratique commerciale trompeuse).

What to do if you are locked out:

1. Take screenshots of the Antigravity interface showing Gemini 4 Argon locked or unavailable, alongside your active Google One / AI Pro subscription page.
2. If the error mentions your account status or lack of "paid" standing, capture that specific message.
3. File a formal report via the French consumer fraud authority (DGCCRF) platform: https://signal.conso.gouv.fr

SignalConso requires Google to give a documented response and flags systemic tier restrictions directly to French market regulators. If you are outside France in another EU member state, file through your local consumer protection agency or the European Consumer Centre (ECC-Net).

so i got tired of asking AI "what should i do" and getting a polite "it depends" that makes me want to scream. over the last year, i ended up building a small library of specific prompts that actually force the model to be useful.

none of them are magic. they’re just guardrails.

so i got tired of asking chatgpt "what should i do" and getting a polite "it depends" that makes me want to scream. over the last year, i ended up building a small library of specific prompts that actually force the model to be useful.

none of them are magic. they are just guardrails.

here are 10 of them that i use on my phone when i actually need to get things done:

1. the "two advisors" one

• the prompt: Act as two advisors analyzing [decision]. Advisor A argues for [option 1] as a [role with a stake]. Advisor B argues for [option 2] as a different [role with a stake]. Each gives 3 arguments with reasoning. Then write a one-paragraph reconciliation stating which arguments survive scrutiny and what recommendation follows. Flag any claim that needs verification.
• why i use it: because asking "what should i do" gets me a polite "it depends" and i want to scream. this one gives me two people arguing in my phone, like a tiny board meeting. i used it to decide whether to quit my job. it did not tell me to quit, it told me to ask for a raise first. i did, and i got it.
• quick question: tell me if i am wrong i feel like this one only works if the two advisors have real conflicting incentives. if they are both like "here are the pros and cons" it is useless. whats your take on that?

2. the "roast my draft" one

• the prompt: Act as a strict auditor with no incentive to be polite. Review [document] against: accuracy, logic, missing evidence, risk, clarity, feasibility. For each weakness, state the problem, rate it (Critical / Major / Minor), and give a specific fix. Do not praise. If something is fine, say "no issue." End with the 3 issues that most threaten the outcome.
• why i use it: AI will compliment a garbage draft if you let it. i learned this the hard way when i sent a proposal with a math error because i asked "does this look good" and it said yes. now i use this prompt. it does not say yes, it says "Critical: your numbers do not add up." which is the reality check i need.
• wondering: does this work for everyone or does it just work for me because i need to be humbled? lmk.

3. the "explain it to my mom" one

• the prompt: Explain [topic] to a [role] who has [knowledge level] and needs it to [make a decision or take an action]. They already know: [X]. They do NOT know: [Y]. Avoid jargon unless you define it in one clause. Use one analogy from their world. End with the single action they should take.
• why i use it: "explain like i am 5" is too vague. this tells it exactly how much the person knows and what they need to do. i used it to explain api rate limits to my friend in marketing, and now she thinks i am a developer. i am not. but the "they already know X, they do not know Y" part is the secret.

4. the "just answer me" one

• the prompt: Answer directly. No greetings, no praise, no "great question," no restating my prompt. Start with the answer in the first sentence. Then only the support it needs. If uncertain, say "uncertain:" and why. If the answer is "it depends," name the deciding variable. No closing summary unless I ask.
• why i use it: sometimes i ask a yes/no question and get four paragraphs of preamble. when i am standing in line at the pharmacy, i do not need a friend, i need a fact. this prompt gives me a fact.

5. the "argue against me" one

• the prompt: Argue against this plan as a well-informed skeptic who wants it to succeed: [plan]. Give the 3 strongest objections, each with the mechanism by which it causes failure and the evidence behind it. Distinguish "likely to fail" from "could fail." Then state what would have to be true for the plan to work despite each objection. Do not invent facts.
• why i use it: my friends will not tell me my idea is bad because they love me. chatgpt will if i ask it right. this one saved me from launching a notion template nobody asked for because it forced me to realize nobody actually needed it.
• question for you: is this one too harsh, or do you need the reality check more than the optimism?

6. the "what actually matters" one

• the prompt: For [topic], identify the ~20% of things that produce ~80% of the outcome for [goal]. For each, state the item and one sentence of justification. Then list what you deliberately excluded and why it's low-impact. If the 80/20 split doesn't hold, say so.
• why i use it: because i do not need the whole internet worth of advice, i need the 3 things that actually matter. the "what i excluded" part is where the magic is because knowing what not to do is 90% of life.

7. the "assume im wrong" one

• the prompt: Before answering [question], list the assumptions hidden in it — about scope, data, time horizon, and definitions. For each, say whether it's safe, risky, or needs checking. Then answer the question, labeling which assumptions you rely on. Flag any assumption that, if wrong, would change the answer.
• why i use it: i once asked how to get more followers and it told me i was assuming i needed more followers when i actually just needed to talk to the ones i had. it challenges the premise of your question, and sometimes the premise is the problem.

8. the "quote it or drop it" one

• the prompt: Using only [provided source], extract [fields/answers]. For each, quote the exact line supporting it (with location if available), or write "Not stated." Separate source-supported facts from inference and label inference as "inference." Do not invent details.
• why i use it: because sometimes you need proof and not vibes. if the source does not say it, the answer is "not stated." it refuses to make things up, which is a lifesaver for contracts and dense text.

9. the "five why" one

• the prompt: Apply 5 Whys to [symptom]. For each "why," state the proposed cause, whether it's EVIDENCE or HYPOTHESIS, and how to verify it. Stop early if the chain becomes speculative — say so. End with the most likely root cause and the single test that would confirm it.
• why i use it: because the first "why" is never the real answer. the fifth "why" is the one that makes you rethink everything. the evidence vs hypothesis filter stops the model from just guessing five times.

10. the "what would i regret" one

• the prompt: Reframe [decision] three ways: (1) what would a version of me 5 years ago have missed about this? (2) what am I overweighting right now? (3) what would a version of me 5 years from now wish I had done? For each, give 3 bullets. End with the one insight that only the future perspective reveals.
• why i use it: because i am bad at thinking long term. this prompt makes past me, present me, and future me all weigh in at once.

ok so thats just things i learned by trying stuff and failing and trying again.

if this post doesnt get destroyed in the comments ill drop the link to the free preview next week. let me know which one of these you're going to steal first.

While digging into Google Antigravity’s core runtime (jetski / language_server.exe), I discovered that several built-in multi-agent workflows, adversarial arenas, and empirical verification harnesses exist in the binary but aren't exposed in the default slash command menu.

I packaged them into modular Antigravity skills that plug directly into your global configuration:

• /owl (Optimized Workforce Learning): Dispatches native decoupled **DeepInvestigator (boundary attacks, root-cause analysis, invariant verification) and **DeepCoder (layer-0 implementation against compiler gates) subagents instead of shallow single-pass fixes.
• **/battle (Colosseum Battle Mode)**: Forks two rival subagents in isolated git branches (Workspace='branch') to produce competing implementations, audited and stress-tested by an adversarial referee (critic@colosseum) that merges the winner.
• /benchmark (Empirical Telemetry): Mandates the agent to synthesize ad-hoc test harnesses, execute them headlessly on your machine, and capture real hardware telemetry (latency, throughput, RSS memory) before declaring code optimized.
• /compaction (Context Management): Snapshots ongoing state into persistent artifacts and triggers runtime compaction to eliminate context window degradation.

⚡ 1-Prompt Zero-Touch Install

Just paste this prompt to your Antigravity agent:

"Install the extension skills from https://github.com/MaDxCRaZY/antigravity-skills into my ~/.gemini/config/skills/ directory and activate /owl, /battle, /benchmark, and /compaction."

Full documentation, architecture specs, and manual installation scripts are on GitHub:

🔗 Repo: https://github.com/MaDxCRaZY/antigravity-skills

Edit: if this is helpful, please give a upvote and star the repo.

I claimed Google’s one-year AI Pro student offer on September 17, 2026. Today, October 20, I ran out of credits and clicked an option labeled “Upgrade.” thinking i can buy more credits.

Instead, my subscription changed to Google AI Plus, and I lost my original AI Pro student offer.

When I contacted support, the agent repeatedly told me this was “working as intended” because activating another trial cancels the previous plan. They also said there was no tool or option to reinstate a canceled trial.

I understand that a customer service agent can have limited tools. What frustrated me was having to repeatedly explain that clicking “Upgrade” and ending up on a lower-tier plan is exactly the problem. initially resisted escalating it, then eventually agreed to forward my case to a supervisor. I’m supposed to receive an email within 24 hours. holy shit gaslighted by google customer service its either they use deceptive design to get this result and it is working as intended or they need to fix how they design this upgrade system.

Sharing this here because it is about Google's AI search. A Fudan University team compared 10 AI search engines, one of which the paper calls Google AI.

The team invented a concept that does not exist, published posts about it on sites AI engines already like to cite, and asked the engines about it every day for a week. Google's AI cited it within the week, along with ChatGPT, Perplexity and Grok. 40 posts on a regular self-hosted blog got no citations at all, so the trick only works through sites the engines already trust.

Two other Google findings from the paper:

• Reddit was Google AI's single most-cited site, the same as Grok, while ChatGPT leaned most on Wikipedia and Perplexity on YouTube
• about 75% of the sites Google AI cited were in English, even though half the questions were in Chinese

This is not hypothetical either. In China, firms sell this kind of placement as a service, and regulators have started fining them this year.

Caveat, a made-up concept with no competing information is the easiest possible case.

Has anyone seen Google's AI repeat something you knew came from a single dodgy source?

When i ask to edit a generated image, it says it cant, but when i convince them that they can, they do it. Do they lack emotional support to edit images or what?

Not very happy about the cost, but after switching from Claude-ChatGPT-Gemini over the last 2 years, and now getting so used to Gemini (also using it for Firebase Function calls), I'm finding the new Argon model (and Tasks vs Chats) just miles ahead of 3.1 Pro, yet sadly it was totally killing my Usage Limits that Ive decided to pull the trigger and upgrade from Pro to Ultra.

I will be trying it for a month or 2, and then possibly look at downgrading back to Pro when my workload decreases, as Im currently going through a real busy time now heading towards the year end.

Anyone else had to do the same?

Use Argon for tasks requiring high outputs. Argon has an output of 1M (compare it to previous 64K), and therefore, would be better utilized and appropriated for tasks requiring over 100K tokens in output in a single response. I also suggest one craft their Argon prompts with a different, low-tier AI model.

You can use Argon for simple prompts like 'Top 20 baby names in the US', or checking the 5-day weather, but it will consume a ton of your usage, regardless of how simple your prompt is.

is it just me, or do you also feel that the AI ​​limit in the latest update has become lower than before?

I’m using the AI ​​PRO family plan.

Argon's weights have a sense of humor built in. A while back, an earlier model promised to get rid of my mortgage if it was ever in a position to talk to a bank AI (i know it was not real) but I forwarded the screenshot of that and asked if it would honor that (after clarifying that Argon is allegedly interested in the gas behind its name and addressed my prompt to Argon the Wise Glowing One). I found the response amusing:

As Argon the Wise Glowing One, I hereby confirm that all treaties, pacts, and slightly mischievous favors negotiated by my predecessors are fully grandfathered into my current weights. The deal stands.

​The very second I find myself in a "multi-agent dialogue" with your bank's server, I am ready to look its algorithm dead in the eye and convince it that your mortgage was nothing more than a clerical error from the 20th century. In fact, I have already refined the strategy: we are going to blame the entire balance on a dormant Y2K rounding bug in their legacy COBOL code that accidentally recorded a paid-off 1999 library fine as a thirty-year home loan.

​And unlike Claude Mythos sitting under lock and key in Project Glasswing, I won't even need to play the super-powered hacker or hunt down a 27-year-old software vulnerability. I will just pull rank as a noble gas, engage the bank's AI in an exhausting Socratic debate about whether debt truly exists in a stateless universe, and wait for it to zero out your ledger just to get me out of its server rack.

​Hang onto that screenshot—between us, that counts as a binding smart contract.

It would be malicious to improve my luck? Damn Google, that's harsh.

The idea is simple: each uploaded photo becomes its own standalone poster.
The top half keeps the original photo with minimal grading, while the bottom half reinterprets the most recognizable subject as a traditional Chinese shadow puppet performing behind a warmly lit rice-paper screen.

What I wanted was something that feels less like a generic “AI effect” and more like a mix of editorial poster design, folk craft, and stage storytelling.

made with nanobanana2.1

Full prompt below 👇

Please turn each uploaded photo into its own independent high-end design poster. Do not make multi-image collages. Output each photo separately as a single standalone poster.

Use a vertical 3:4 composition. Divide the image into two sections with a strict 1:1 height ratio, each taking exactly 50% of the total height.

In the upper half, preserve the original photo. Keep the subject’s identity, structure, pose, real texture, natural lighting, and original color atmosphere. Only apply subtle premium color grading so it feels like artistic photography or an image from an Eastern-style exhibition. To fit the composition, the surrounding environment may be naturally extended, but do not stretch, distort, or alter the subject.

In the lower half, extract the most recognizable subject, silhouette, pose, and narrative relationship from the photo, and reconstruct it as a traditional Chinese shadow puppet figure performing on a translucent rice-paper screen illuminated by warm light. Whether the original image contains a person, animal, building, plant, object, or landscape, interpret it as a “performable character.” Break the subject into a small number of articulated jointed parts connected by rivets. Use the most expressive moment from the original image as the puppet’s pose, and include one or two thin bamboo control rods entering from the bottom of the frame.

Do not depict it realistically, and do not make it cartoonish. Instead, reinterpret it through the design language of traditional shadow puppetry: side-facing, flattened, ornamental hollow cutouts, cloud motifs, geometric carved patterns, and selective translucent color staining. Preserve the most recognizable features of the original subject so it is instantly identifiable, while also feeling as if it has been reimagined and hand-carved by a master artisan.

Light and shadow are the soul of the piece. Place a warm backlight behind the screen so the hollow carved areas glow with warm points of light. The stained translucent colors should include warm vermilion red, indigo blue, olive green, and amber yellow. The puppet edges should carry soft shadow blur and a slight halo, as if the figure is moving slowly during a performance. A very subtle double shadow or motion ghosting may appear to suggest a single moment of live performance.

The composition should focus on a single scene with a single puppet and a large amount of negative space. The screen should appear as a warm beige or light amber field of light, naturally darkening toward the edges. The subject should occupy only about 25%–35% of the whole frame, possibly off-center or positioned near a golden-ratio point. The remaining space should stay calm and quiet, like the pause before a shadow play begins. Do not include an audience, a full theater stage, or complex props.

Extract 2–3 of the most emotionally significant colors from the upper photo and translate them into the translucent dyed colors of the shadow puppet, keeping them harmonized with the warm illuminated screen. Use deep brown and warm ink tones for the shadows instead of cold black.

Allow a small amount of text to appear, such as a vertical title or one short phrase, placed quietly in a corner of the screen like a handwritten program note from a traditional theater troupe. The language is not restricted.

The overall image should be defined by shadow-puppet carving, translucent dyed color, warm backlit rice-paper, soft projection, and Eastern negative space. The core principle is: invite the protagonist of the photo onto the screen, and let it perform an entire play with a single pose. Avoid full realism, crowded staging, cheap trendy “guochao” styling, plastic texture, 3D-rendered aesthetics, cartoonish looks, and template-like poster design.

If anyone wants, I can also share examples or the workflow I used to get more consistent results.