Your Digital First Impression: What Does a Quick Search Reveal About You?

By Cloaked Team

When someone searches your name, what shows up can shape their opinion before you ever meet. Today, that first impression can come from Google results, people-search sites, social media profiles, and even AI tools that make personal details easier to surface.

To understand how exposed Americans really are, Cloaked surveyed 1,057 U.S. adults and analyzed Google search volume trends from January 2024 to February 2026 across 125 digital identity and online privacy terms. The results revealed a growing gap between how much control people thought they had over their online presence and what their digital footprint actually said about them.
‍
Key Takeaways:

• More than 2 in 5 Americans (43%) appear on the first page of Google results when they search their own name, and more than 1 in 3 of those who feel confident about their results (38%) didn't even show up on page one.
• Over 1 in 3 Americans (34%) lose interest in someone after looking them up online, but only 1 in 5 Americans (20%) suspect it has happened to them.
• Nearly 1 in 2 Americans (47%) have no idea they could search themselves on AI tools like ChatGPT or Gemini.
• Over 1 in 2 Americans (53%) who try to remove personal information from the internet fail or have only mixed results.
• Combined search volume for AI-related privacy terms grew 165% year over year.

Privacy Awareness Is Rising, but Mostly Before Something Goes Wrong

More people are actively thinking about their digital footprint, especially as AI makes personal information feel easier to surface. Search behavior suggests that concern around online privacy is growing quickly, even if most people are still focused on prevention instead of cleanup.

Combined search volume for AI-related privacy terms grew 165% year over year, showing a sharp increase in public interest around digital identity and personal data exposure. Searches for "remove personal information from the internet free" more than doubled year over year, rising 133%, while "how to delete personal information from the internet" grew 34% and remained the highest-volume removal term.

‍Nearly all digital identity searches (96%) focused on awareness, monitoring, or protection, while only 3% were reactive and tied to deletion, removal, or damage control. That pattern suggests people are trying to stay ahead of exposure, not just respond after the fact.

‍Some search terms point to more urgent privacy concerns. Searches tied to doxing prevention grew 37% year over year, while arrest record removal searches rose 72%. Many people were worried about visibility, but also about serious reputational or safety risks connected to identity theft and public exposure.

Search activity also varied widely by state. New Hampshire led the nation in per capita digital identity searches with 13,396 per 100,000 people, nearly double Hawaii's 6,901. The Northeast dominated the top 10 per capita rankings, with 8 of the 10 most active states located in the region. Vermont, Wyoming, and Delaware over-indexed the most for urgent or reactive searches, each landing at roughly double the national average for removal, deletion, and damage-control terms.

What People Found Online Often Did Not Match How in Control They Felt

Seeing yourself online is one thing. Feeling confident that your search results are accurate, current, and limited to what you want others to see is something else entirely.

About 2 in 5 Americans appeared on the first page of their own Google results, but visibility varied by generation. Millennials were the most likely to show up on page one at 49%, while Gen Z (38%) and baby boomers (37%) were less likely. At the same time, 14% of Americans had no idea what would appear first if someone searched their name, showing that many people aren't fully aware of their digital first impression.

Control over that impression felt limited:

• Over 3 in 5 Gen X Americans (62%) disagreed that they felt in control of what appears about them online, and 49% of Gen Z Americans did as well.
• More than half of women (57%) and 44% of men agreed their personal information was more publicly available than it should be.

The findings also showed major gaps in awareness. Nearly 1 in 5 Gen Z Americans (17%) had no idea their information may already be listed on people-search sites, compared to just 5% of millennials. About 1 in 2 Gen X Americans did not know they could search themselves on AI tools, the highest rate of any generation.

When people looked themselves up, many found reason for concern. Half of Americans who searched for their own personal details said that information was easy to locate, and more than 1 in 2 baby boomers said their Google results contained outdated or irrelevant information. Women were also slightly more likely than men to report at least one negative consequence from having personal information online (74% vs. 70%).

For active job seekers, those risks felt even more immediate. Nearly 1 in 3 found something about themselves online that they did not want others to see, compared to about 1 in 5 non-seekers. That gap suggests digital reputation matters most when you feel like you are being evaluated.

Employers, professional contacts, and job seekers are also using online information and AI tools to decide whether to move forward.
‍

Nearly 1 in 5 active job seekers (18%) felt their digital footprint cost them a job, roughly double the rate of non-seekers. About 1 in 6 (16%) chose not to apply for a position, and about 1 in 7 (14%) avoided a professional connection entirely, each at roughly double the rate of people who were not actively job hunting.‍

AI was also changing how people prepared for professional interactions. Nearly 1 in 5 active job seekers (18%) used an AI tool to research someone before a professional meeting, compared to just 9% of non-seekers. That added another layer to digital first impressions, especially for people already worried that their online information was outdated, overly visible, or easy to misread.

‍Younger adults appeared more ready to take action. More than 1 in 3 millennials (36%) had tried removing personal information from the internet, the highest rate of any generation, compared to about 1 in 5 baby boomers (21%). Gen Z and millennials were also the most willing to pay for a data removal service, suggesting that younger Americans saw digital identity management as increasingly necessary rather than optional.

Your Search Results Are Part of Your Reputation

Your digital first impression now reaches into hiring, networking, and everyday trust. The findings showed that many Americans were concerned about what others could find, but fewer fully understood how visible they were or how hard it can be to fix outdated or unwanted information once it is out there. The clearest takeaway is simple: checking what appears about you online is no longer just a privacy habit; it is part of protecting your reputation, reducing identity theft risk, and staying in control of your personal data.

Methodology

A survey of 1,057 U.S. adults was conducted on behalf of Cloaked to measure the gap between how people perceive and manage their digital identity and what the internet actually reflects back. Respondents were asked about their awareness of their online presence, their confidence in what others can find about them, their experiences with people-search sites and AI tools, consequences they have faced from their personal information being online, and how their digital footprint has affected their career opportunities. The generational breakdown was Gen Z (18%), millennials (44%), Gen X (24%), and baby boomers (9%).

‍Additionally,  Google search volume data from January 2024 to February 2026 was also analyzed to identify which states searched for digital identity and online privacy terms most frequently on a per capita basis. This analysis examined 125 related search terms across all 50 states and ranked them accordingly to highlight where awareness and concern about personal data exposure were highest.

‍Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: Oversight Board Highlights Due Process and Transparency Concerns in Meta Account Enforcement Review
by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Oversight Board Highlights Due Process and Transparency Concerns in Meta Account Enforcement Review

The Oversight Board has used its first review of a permanently disabled account to examine broader issues related to account governance, transparency and due process on social media platforms.

The case involved an Instagram account that Meta permanently disabled in 2025 after determining that several posts violated its policies, including two posts containing severe threats of violence against a journalist. The Board upheld Meta’s decision to disable the account and remove the violating content.

However, the Board said the case also highlighted broader systemic human rights concerns related to account governance, transparency, due process and the handling of credible threats of violence.

Among the issues identified were delays in reviewing credible threats of severe violence, due process for users whose accounts are disabled, and the availability of clear and comprehensive information about account restrictions and permanent disablement policies.

The Board said it was seriously concerned that Meta did not review two clear and credible threats swiftly when they were posted, delaying their removal and exposing the targeted journalist to risk for a prolonged period.

The Board also said the case highlighted the lack of a clear framework guiding decisions to permanently disable an account for serious safety concerns. It further noted that there may be situations in which significant but time-bound suspensions could be considered instead of permanent disablement.

The decision comes as some social media users have publicly complained about account bans and difficulties accessing appeals processes.

In posts on X, recently, several users said their Instagram, Facebook or WhatsApp accounts had been disabled or banned and that they had struggled to obtain explanations or human review.

"I was part of the recent ban wave earlier today too. Lost a 20 year old account over sheer and utter incompetent laziness letting a bot run the most important feature. This is unacceptable and even if things return back, I will be significantly avoiding of Meta apps.", expressed a user @6Flabs on X.

As part of its decision, the Board outlined principles it said should guide account governance on social media platforms. These include providing users with clear information about account disablement rules, detailed explanations for enforcement decisions, effective appeal mechanisms and greater transparency regarding enforcement trends.

The Board also said social media companies should coordinate on sharing information about accounts that credibly threaten serious violence.

According to the Board, the decision should not be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of Meta’s broader approach to banning or restricting accounts.

The case marks the first time the Board has assessed the permanent disabling of a user account as part of an expansion of its mandate beyond individual content decisions.

Image: DIW

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next:

• Eroding a virtue: AI trains people to expect instant answers – and that’s bad news for patience

• Google’s AI Search Has Struggled With One Religious Question for Years
by AI Analysis via Digital Information World

Eroding a virtue: AI trains people to expect instant answers – and that’s bad news for patience

Christian B. Miller, Wake Forest University

Image: Thirdman - Pexels

When I was growing up, teachers would assign research papers that required going to the library, or later, searching for relevant material on the internet. If the paper was going to turn out well, we students needed to patiently comb through piles of material, weaving what we found into a coherent argument that was well-supported with evidence.

Unbeknownst to us at the time, our teachers were giving us a chance to develop our patience.

That chance is rapidly disappearing with increased use of artificial intelligence tools. Now you can have an AI do everything from school assignments to legal writing, sermon preparation, vacation planning, work emails and academic research. Researchers are already documenting how using AI tools in these contexts likely erodes critical thinking skills.

But what hasn’t been appreciated is AI’s effect on patience. As a philosopher who has written extensively about virtue, including the virtue of patience, I am especially concerned about what people can do to resist this trend.

What is patience, and why is it important?

Patience involves responding calmly when it is taking longer than you want to accomplish your goals.

When I am stuck in a traffic jam, or the checkout line is barely moving, I might wish that I was meeting my goals faster, but my calm demeanor is a sign that I am being patient. If I react to delays like these with frustration or anger, that is a sign that I am being impatient.

The same applies in the case of doing research. If it is taking me awhile to find everything I need, that can test my patience. But if I react to such a delay with calmness, I avoid frustration or anger and hence impatience.

Philosophers, theologians and educators have long considered patience an important character trait to cultivate. It is a virtue that contributes to well-being. More specifically, researchers have linked it to a variety of good outcomes, including healthier lifestyles, greater emotion regulation, more fulfilling relationships, increased caring about equity and justice, increased cooperation, greater purpose in life, lower depression and higher life satisfaction.

Why AI tools erode a capacity for patience

AI tools are helping foster a culture of immediacy, thereby diminishing the capacity for patience. Admittedly, we already started down this path with the dawn of the internet and the launch of fast and easy search engines. But now, AI instantaneously delivers fully developed answers, further reducing the delays once experienced as people searched, assessed and integrated information from various sources.

The training in patience that people used to get from thorough research and investigation is being replaced by a growing sense of impatience with thinking that takes time and effort. And this impatience doesn’t just stop with research. It extends to writing as well.

Research on AI and patience is still in its infancy. But my conclusions about these impacts rest on plausible inferences from what researchers know more generally about cognitive psychology. For instance, psychologists have long understood that people’s expectations change due to repeated use and exposure to something.

This adaptation explains why the hourlong train ride to work can start out as exhausting, but become part of your daily routine. Or you might initially be impressed by how fast your new computer is, but after a while you take it for granted and get frustrated if loading a PowerPoint presentation takes even a few moments.

Hence using AI tools is likely to recalibrate what feels normal to you. In particular, it is likely to normalize getting immediate, fully formed answers to your questions. This shift, I contend, makes people increasingly impatient with the very tasks of research and investigation that helped train us to become more patient in the past.

One concrete illustration of this change is with students. If a professor gives an assignment involving interpreting an author’s text and then developing a critique of the author’s position, students today are very tempted to offload the patient work of interpretation and critique to an AI.

Or consider sermon preparation. Pastors normally take hours a week to examine the original language for their text, consult commentaries, develop illustrations and examples, and deliberate about practical applications. Now, this process can all be done in a matter of seconds using AI, and one study found that a majority of pastors are using it for sermon preparation. There is no patience training happening here.

What can be done?

There are ways to cultivate patience in the age of AI tools, but they will not be easy. Here are three:

• Deliberately choose a slower path. Select this option because it comes with intellectual struggles, not in spite of them. Don’t rely on AI summaries or shortcuts, but try to come up with the answers on your own. This choice needs to be deliberative since the default human tendency is to take the easier route. But the long-term benefit is worth the short-term cost.

• Design your environment. Remove AI tools from your surroundings and carve out dedicated time free of distractions and notifications. Reading and writing take time, and by being willing to invest that time and not get impatient with how long it is taking, you can cultivate patience.

• Encourage and reward intellectual engagement. Institutions such as schools and churches have a structural role to play. The more such institutions can resist integrating AI tools into every aspect of their operations, and instead incentivize human intellectual engagement even at the expense of efficiency, the better as far as patience is concerned.

There is one other hopeful suggestion. Patience can be developed in lots of different areas of life that have nothing to do with research and which are less susceptible to AI incursion. Working on a craft project, detailing a car, weeding a garden, practicing your basketball shot, lifting weights – all these activities can foster patience too. The more this character muscle is strengthened, the more it will be available to use in many different areas of your life.

Christian B. Miller, Professor of Philosophy, Wake Forest University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: 

• Filtering out humanity: AI-assisted internet research favors cold logic over ethos and pathos

• The Quiet Advantage in Hiring Right Now: Practicing Your Interview Like It’s a Skill (Ad)

• Google’s AI Search Has Struggled With One Religious Question for Years

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

The Quiet Advantage in Hiring Right Now: Practicing Your Interview Like It’s a Skill (Ad)

Most people prepare for interviews the same way: skim the job description, reread their resume, maybe watch a couple of videos, and hope the conversation goes their way. The problem is that interviews aren’t just “knowledge checks”—they’re performance moments. And like any performance, the difference is usually rehearsal.

If you’ve been looking for a simple way to pressure-test your answers before you’re in front of a real hiring manager, an Interview Practice Tool can be a practical starting point. Not because it magically makes you a better candidate, but because it helps you hear yourself, spot gaps, and tighten your story before it counts.

Why Interviews Feel Hard (Even When You’re Qualified)

Interview anxiety is often framed as nerves, but it’s usually something more specific: uncertainty. You don’t know what they’ll ask, how your answers will land, or whether you’re giving “too much” detail or not enough. That uncertainty is what makes even smart, experienced people suddenly ramble.

There’s also a mismatch between how we think and how interviews work. In real life, you solve problems over time, with context. In an interview, you’re expected to compress that into clean, confident stories—on demand.

Image: Edmond Dantès - pexels

The most common “qualified but shaky” moments

• Over-explaining because you’re trying to prove you know your work.
• Underselling because you assume results “speak for themselves.”
• Blanking when asked about conflict, failure, or salary expectations.
• Drifting off-topic when a question triggers a long timeline.

Practice doesn’t eliminate these risks, but it makes them visible. Once you can understand your own patterns, you can actually change them.

What Career Tools Platforms Get Right: Feedback Loops

The best career tools platforms don’t just hand you templates and generic tips. They create feedback loops—small, repeatable ways to improve. That can be resume checks, cover letter support, or interview practice that lets you rehearse answers and refine them quickly.

Think about how product teams work: they don’t ship once, they iterate. Your interview answers should work the same way. A platform that encourages iteration helps you move from “I think this sounds okay” to “I know this is clear.”

A simple example: turning a vague answer into a strong one

Here’s the difference practice can make with a question like: “Tell me about a time you handled a tough deadline.”

Vague: “I’ve dealt with tight deadlines a lot. I just prioritize and get it done.”

Stronger: “In my last role, a client moved a launch date up by two weeks. I mapped tasks by risk, cut non-essential scope, and set daily check-ins with design and QA. We launched on time, and support tickets dropped 18% compared to the previous release.”

The second answer isn’t “better” because it’s longer—it’s better because it’s specific, structured, and measurable. That’s what a feedback loop trains you to do.

Is ResumeCoach Recommended? A Practical Way to Think About Credibility

When people ask whether a platform is worth using, they’re usually asking two questions at once: “Will it help me?” and “Can I trust it with my time and data?” For interview practice specifically, usefulness is tied to how well the tool mirrors real interview pressure and whether it helps you improve, not just “perform.”

ResumeCoach positions itself as a career tools platform that includes interview practice support alongside other job-search essentials. If you’re evaluating whether it’s a fit, focus less on promises and more on whether the workflow matches how you actually prepare.

What to look for before you commit time to any interview tool

• Realistic prompts that reflect the roles you’re applying for, not only generic questions.
• Repeatability so you can practice the same competency answer until it’s crisp.
• Actionable feedback that helps you adjust structure, clarity, and relevance.
• Time efficiency so practice sessions can fit into a normal week.

If you finish a session with a clearer “next draft” of your answers, the tool is doing its job.

Is ResumeCoach Safe and Legit? The Common-Sense Checklist

Any time you’re using career tools online, it’s reasonable to ask about safety and legitimacy—especially when you’re uploading resumes or sharing details about your work history. While you should always review a service’s policies directly, there are a few practical checks that help you make smarter decisions quickly.

A quick checklist for evaluating safety

1. Know what you’re sharing. For interview practice, you can often avoid sensitive details (client names, internal metrics, private project info) and still tell a strong story.
2. Scan privacy and data handling basics. Look for clear language about what is stored, for how long, and whether content is used beyond providing the service.
3. Use role-appropriate anonymity. Replace identifying details with “a retail client” or “a healthcare partner” without weakening your example.
4. Keep your own copy. Save your best answers separately so you’re not locked into one workflow.

Legitimacy, in practice, comes down to transparency and outcomes. If a platform clearly explains what it does and you can measure your improvement after a few sessions, you’re on solid ground.

How to Practice Without Sounding Scripted

The biggest fear people have about practicing is sounding “rehearsed.” It’s a valid concern—nobody wants to come off like they memorized a speech. But the goal isn’t memorization. It’s building a reliable structure so your best examples show up when you need them.

Try this three-part structure (it keeps you natural)

• Context: What was happening, and what was at stake?
• Choice: What did you decide to do, and why?
• Change: What improved, and how do you know?

Once you have that skeleton, you can vary the wording every time. That’s what keeps it human while still being clear.

“The best interviews don’t sound perfect. They sound prepared—clear enough to follow, specific enough to trust.”

Closing: Treat the Interview Like a Deliverable

If you’re already doing the work—building skills, shipping projects, solving problems—then the interview is simply the moment you translate that value for someone who hasn’t seen it yet. Career tools platforms can help, but only when you use them as a practice loop, not a shortcut.

Your next step is straightforward: pick three questions you dread, practice them until your answers are specific and measurable, and pressure-test them with a tool or a friend. When the real interview comes, you won’t be “hoping” you sound confident—you’ll recognize your own story and deliver it cleanly.

Edited by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: 

• How Fragmented Workplace Tools Are Undermining Feedback, Clarity, and Productivity

• Workplace collaboration: Employees reveal what they want leaders to change

• What the @ Sign Is Called Around the World: 25 Examples

by Sponsored Content via Digital Information World

Filtering out humanity: AI-assisted internet research favors cold logic over ethos and pathos

By David Danelski, UC Riverside News

Image: Amirhosain Gazor - unsplash

Is the internet losing its soul? A collaborative study by UC Riverside computer and social scientists suggests so. As artificial intelligence increasingly answers our online questions with quick summaries and polished explanations, we may be gaining efficiency while losing something distinctly human in the process.

The study found that large language models, or LLMs, such as ChatGPT and Gemini overwhelmingly rely on logic and factual consistency when responding to subjective questions, while web pages written by humans draw from a richer mix of reasoning that includes emotion, lived experience, ethics, and personal authority.

“As people increasingly rely on AI systems for information discovery at the expense of traditional web searches, the web may gradually lose its soul and cease to reflect the human nature that has shaped it over the past 25 years,” said co-author Vagelis Hristidis, a computer scientist at UCR’s Bourns College of Engineering. “This may give rise to new information dissemination platforms in the future.”

Another co-author, Kevin Esterling, a professor of public policy and political science, added, “As humans, we’re hardwired to think that anything producing language has human cognition behind it, but this paper is showing that machines produce language that doesn’t have human qualities when it comes to reasoning and argumentation.”

The study compared how AI systems and traditional web searches respond to controversial or opinion-based questions, such as whether governments should ban fossil-fuel cars or whether the U.S. healthcare system needs major reform. It was presented this week at the ACM Web Science Conference in Braunschweig, Germany, by UCR computer science doctoral student and lead author Md Taukir Azam Chowdhury.

To conduct the study, the researchers analyzed responses from ChatGPT and Gemini alongside results from Google and Bing web searches. Using hundreds of subjective questions drawn from established research datasets, they examined not only the positions taken by the systems, but also the types of justifications used to support those positions.

The researchers classified reasoning according to Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle: logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos refers to logic and factual consistency. Ethos appeals to authority or credibility. Pathos appeals to emotions and shared human experience.

“What we found is that humans essentially use all three of those, whereas LLMs essentially only rely on logos,” Esterling said. “The way they try to persuade is different from the way humans persuade.”

Esterling said the difference becomes obvious in everyday searches.

Suppose someone wants a margarita recipe. An AI chatbot may instantly produce a competent recipe distilled from massive amounts of training data. But by bypassing culinary blogs and personal stories, users also miss the details that could make mixing and consuming the drink more memorable and rewarding.

The website Difford’s Guide, for example, offers dozens of margarita recipes divided into seven styles, including classic, fruity, floral, herbal, and spicy. Written by Simon Difford, the site also provides a history of the cocktail, tracing it back to a journalist’s discovery in the 1930s of a drink then called the “Tequila Daisy” during his travels in Mexico. (Margarita is the Spanish word for daisy.) He further documents with a 1936 newspaper report how it was created unwittingly by an Irish bartender in Tijuana who had grabbed the wrong bottle while trying to mix another drink.

LLMs, however, filter out such depth, nuance, and passion that human writers bring to the table.

The study also found that web pages contain a far broader range of reasoning styles than LLMs. Human-authored web content mixed factual arguments with moral concerns, practical consequences, emotional appeals, and storytelling. For example, a call for funding food banks may draw on the writer’s experience with childhood poverty.

AI systems, by contrast, strongly favored fact-centered explanations that “prioritize logos-type reasoning,” Esterling said.

The researchers suspect this may stem partly from the “alignment” and safety systems AI companies build into their models. These guardrails are designed to steer responses toward factual, non-harmful answers and away from controversial or emotional language.

The study also found that ChatGPT and Gemini closely resembled each other in how they answered questions, even when their responses diverged significantly from the broader diversity found on the web.

Esterling said humans communicate very differently from machines because people constantly anticipate how others will react emotionally and intellectually during conversation.

“When humans talk to each other, we can understand what the other is thinking,” he said. “There’s this kind of two-way interaction.”

Large language models, however, do not truly think about the audience in that way, he said. Instead, they generate statistically probable sequences of words based on training data and internal parameters.

“It’s not like talking to a person at all,” Esterling said. “It’s just a machine that’s predicting what words ought to be said in response to a prompt.”

The researchers warn that as more people rely on AI systems instead of traditional web searches to understand politics, health, ethics, and public affairs, society could gradually lose exposure to the messy but deeply human diversity of reasoning that shapes public discourse.

The AI-based research may be faster and more efficient. Still, it is also flatter, less personal, and less connected to the emotional and moral experiences that help people understand one another, Esterling said.

Hristidis added, “When using AI platforms instead of Web searches, we retrieve a distilled version of knowledge, constrained by the guardrails of each AI platform, and missing any human emotion or opinion diversity.”

The study’s title is “Comparing the Subjective Opinions and Justifications of LLMs and Web Search Engines.” The research team included Esterling, Hristidis, Chowdhury, and doctoral students from the Computer Science and Engineering Department: Jannat Ara Meem, and Zabir Al Nazi. Chowdhury led the experiments for this work.

This article was originally published by University of California, Riverside News and has been republished here with permission.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next:

• UN report warns AI could soon use 3% of world’s electricity and more water than we need to drink

• Google’s AI Search Has Struggled With One Religious Question for Years
by External Contributor via Digital Information World

UN report warns AI could soon use 3% of world’s electricity and more water than we need to drink

Amanda Turnbull-McRae, University of Waikato

Image: Field Engineer - Pexels

One argument often used to quell concerns about the rising energy and resource demand of data centres is that artificial intelligence (AI) models will need less in the future as they improve and become more efficient.

But this seemingly logical thinking is a trap, according to a new United Nations report that quantifies the environmental costs of AI.

The report estimates that by 2030, AI’s energy use could double to consume 3% of the world’s electricity, produce emissions to equal the UK and deplete more water for cooling than the annual drinking water need of the global population.

It also anticipates the use of AI will follow an economic principle known as the “Jevons paradox”, which predicts that when technological improvements increase the efficiency of a resource, it leads to a rise, rather than a fall, in the total consumption of that resource.

The paradox is named after economist William Stanley Jevons who observed this effect with the use of coal in 19th-century England. Efficiency gains did not reduce overall consumption. Instead, the lower costs resulted in expanded use and higher overall demand.

As AI models become cheaper and more attractive, the report expects this to encourage new uses and higher volumes of use, eroding and possibly erasing any savings from efficiency advances.

To avoid falling into this trap, it lays out a roadmap for responsible AI use based on guiding principles of transparency, efficiency by design, equity and justice, lifecycle responsibility, global cooperation and sustainable use.

The scale of the problem

Last year, data centres already consumed as much electricity as Saudi Arabia, which ranks as the world’s 11th largest electricity consumer.

If electricity use doubles as projected by 2030, the associated carbon footprint would require 6.7 billion trees grown over ten years to offset this demand.

Data centres would also require 9.3 trillion litres of water and land nearly ten times the size of Mexico City.

Beyond resource use, the report also underscores the structural inequity at the heart of the AI boom, with only 32 nations hosting AI-specific cloud infrastructure and 90% of that capacity located in the US and China.

It warns of a widening digital divide between nations that build and control AI systems and those that consume them, with the latter often bearing a disproportionate environmental burden caused by mineral extraction and e-waste.

Responsible AI use

Two main forces shape AI’s operational footprint: how much we use it and how we use it.

This involves all tasks AI models perform, from text and code generation to image and video. Each of these tasks requires different levels of computational effort.

The model choice also matters as each AI system performs these task with distinct energy and environmental costs.

The report argues responsible AI requires full value-chain governance, from mineral sourcing to recycling and safe disposal.

It calls for a twinning of capability and environmental stewardship – thinking about both what AI can do for us and the protection of the natural environment.

This would mean making environmental disclosures a routine part of AI development, at both the model and task level, and incorporating projected AI demand in climate and energy planning.

Responsible AI is crucial as countries are promoting and adopting AI across government and the public sector.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the government has launched a national AI strategy and a public service AI framework.

While the framework was informed by the OECD’s values-based AI principles, including inclusive and sustainable development, there is no requirement for environmental disclosures and no regulator compiling energy use or emissions.

Likewise in Australia, improving public services is part of the national AI plan. For example, the National Film and Sound Archive of Australia has created Bowerbird, a machine learning-enabled mass audio and video transcription engine, to document material. The Department of Veteran’s Affairs has developed a proof-of-concept tool to see whether AI can help speed up the processing of claims.

Both countries take a deliberate “light touch” and principles-based regulatory approach to AI. But this approach risks overlooking the growing environmental cost of AI that can’t be solved by improving it.

The natural environment is foundational to the economy, culture and wellbeing. It should be at the centre of our thinking. It’s time to rethink the AI innovation playbook and shift focus toward a sustainable tech future.

Amanda Turnbull-McRae, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Waikato

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: 

• Fast deliveries worsen conditions for e-commerce warehouse workers

• Google Says AI Overviews Has Over 2.5 Billion Monthly Active Users as New Website Controls Roll Out

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Fast deliveries worsen conditions for e-commerce warehouse workers

By James Dean, Cornell Chronicle

Image: Daniel Bernard - unsplash

Holding off on that late-night online order of a book, blender or blue jeans could ease the strain on a warehouse worker.

Consumers’ around-the-clock, often impulsive demand for cheap, rapidly delivered products creates harsher working conditions in e-commerce fulfillment centers than in traditional warehouses, according to Cornell-led research that provides the first comprehensive assessment of e-commerce work in the U.S.

Between Amazon and Walmart, the nation’s two largest warehouse employers, surveys found jobs at Amazon fulfillment centers to be significantly worse – more intense and dangerous – likely driven by the e-commerce market leader’s emphasis on fast delivery.

The findings are cause for concern if Amazon’s practices become the norm, the researchers said – but also show alternative approaches are viable.

“E-commerce heightens the frenzy among retailers to satisfy customers with convenience, speed and cheap prices, offerings that all erode job quality for workers behind the scenes,” said Alexander Kowalski, assistant professor of human resource studies in the ILR School. “This is a problematic trend for a large and growing share of the labor market – but it doesn’t have to be this way.”

Kowalski is the first author of “At the Mercy of the Market: E-Commerce and Warehouse Work in the United States,” published May 19 in the ILR Review. Co-authors are Sanjay Pinto and Beth Gutelius, senior research fellows at the University of Illinois-Chicago’s Center for Urban Economic Development; and Steven Vallas, professor emeritus of sociology at Northeastern University.

In related papers, Kowalski has found shortcomings in so-called “collaborative robots” being deployed in e-commerce warehouses, and that a program giving e-commerce workers more of a voice improved their well-being.

Research about the workers who enable e-commerce has highlighted reasons such jobs may be more challenging: They involve more varied inventory, more intensive labor, less predictable demand and more frequent returns. In response, workers including material movers, pickers, packers and clerks earn low wages and may face unpredictable schedules, monotonous tasks, limited opportunities for breaks, digital surveillance and discipline imposed by algorithms.

Research, however, has largely focused on Amazon, leaving it unclear whether job quality there represented warehousing broadly, the e-commerce sector or a particular corporate strategy. To address that question, Kowalski’s team first sought to establish a big-picture view of U.S. warehouse work, which has not been documented comprehensively despite enormous growth – tripling over the past 20 years, as e-commerce increased to 16.4% of retail sales.

The team surveyed about 400 hourly employees representative of the U.S. population of warehouse workers. Some supported e-commerce fulfillment centers primarily reacting to consumer orders, called business-to-consumer (B2C) warehouses; others worked in distribution and sorting centers serving brick-and-mortar stores or manufacturers, called business-to-business (B2B) warehouses.

The results confirmed a “B2C Effect”: Warehouse jobs were challenging on average, but worse at B2C – largely e-commerce – sites. Those workers experienced more pressure to move quickly and avoid taking breaks, greater exposure to unsafe situations and significantly worse overall well-being – a measure of anxiety, burnout and stress – but were not paid more.

“The warehouse segment dedicated to e-commerce offers lower-quality jobs across the board,” Kowalski said. “The results suggest that more time-sensitive pressures related to speedy delivery make for especially low-quality jobs in e-commerce.”

To investigate if those issues were consistent across retailers, the researchers next surveyed warehouse employees at Amazon (1,450 respondents) and Walmart (450 respondents), which respectively accounted for 38% and 6% of U.S. online shopping in 2023.

The results showed Amazon’s fulfillment centers housed the least desirable warehousing jobs. Respondents working in those facilities were more likely to report higher intensity, less opportunity, lower wages, greater unfairness and more challenges concerning safety, well-being and injuries. Walmart’s baseline job was not high-quality but varied little by warehouse type, whereas Amazon’s e-commerce jobs – the majority of its warehouse workforce – were significantly worse than comparable Walmart jobs, the researchers said. The findings suggest Walmart’s emphasis on low prices imposes less burden on e-commerce warehouse workers than Amazon’s focus on delivery speed.

“E-commerce creates downward pressure on work conditions,” Kowalski said, “and Amazon dials it up even more.”

The contrast between e-commerce’s biggest players, however, implies that Amazon’s lower job quality is not inevitable, but flows from its strategic priorities. Improving job quality will require worker movements, regulatory policies, consumer awareness and businesses seeing value in doing things differently, the researchers said. Kowalski pointed to his research showing better outcomes when workers are more involved in decision-making as further evidence that e-commerce can be managed less punitively.

“We are going down a path that should be worrisome for workers and for consumers alike,” he said. “But if there is a silver lining, it’s that one can arrange e-commerce operations in a way that shifts some of the burden off of workers. Now it’s up to companies to choose to do things that way.”

This post was originally published on Cornell Chronicle and republished here with permission.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: 

• Powerful AI is making facial recognition better at identifying you

• Google Says AI Overviews Has Over 2.5 Billion Monthly Active Users as New Website Controls Roll Out
by External Contributor via Digital Information World