The median does not move if the upper tail shifts, it only moves if the median moves.

The fact that they do not report the mean is concerning. The mean captures the entire distribution and could actually be used to calculate the expected value of energy used.

The median only tells you which point separates the upper half from the lower half, if you don't know anything else about the distribution you cannot use it for any kind of analysis.

I can't copy text from that pdf on my phone, but the paragraph above says exactly what you'd expect: they're using a "median" value from a "typical user" across all Gemini models. While being very careful not to list the specific models which are used to calculate this median, because it almost certainly includes the tiny model used to show AI summaries on google.com, which would massively skew the median value. As someone above said, it's like adding 8 extra meals of a single lettuce leaf and then claiming you reduced the median caloric intake of your meals.

This doesn’t check out. It is not reasonable to interpret “Gemini app” as also including a functionality that is embedded in google searches.

Gemini app is a specific thing: the Gemini App that actually exists.

How can Gemini App also include their internal augmented functionality on search which itself is not an application?

If I, as a regular Google user ask in the search "is this search powered by Gemini?", the AI generated result is in the affirmative.

"Yes, this search is powered by a customized version of the Gemini model for its generative AI features."

Based on that, I'm not sure how it is reasonable to claim that Gemini App has a legal term that is exclusive of its use in search.

Amusingly, it refuses to answer if i ask "is this search powered by Gemini app?"

What? The paper clearly says "This section presents the environmental impact metrics for the Gemini Apps AI assistant". You are going through lots of hoops instead of just reading the paper.