63% Followed Unverified AI Health Advice, 58% of Millennial Parents Did So for Children, 42% Misrepresented Information for Privacy Reasons

By Talkerresearch | Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad

One in seven Americans trust AI chatbots as much as they trust a doctor, according to new research.

A survey of 1,000 millennial parents and 1,000 general population Americans explored how they are using AI to manage their own health or their children’s health, and whether they understand how AI generates the advice it provides.

Image: Betterimagesofai - CC BY

Confidence in AI is growing

Among Americans who use AI for health purposes, the number of respondents who trust AI as much as they trust a doctor nearly quintuples compared to non-AI users, and 60% said they would believe AI-generated health advice even if it contradicted guidance from a healthcare provider.

The survey conducted by Talker Research for MD Live by Evernorth found that nearly two-thirds (63%) of AI users admit they have followed health advice from AI without first confirming it with a healthcare provider.

That confidence may stem from the way AI delivers information: Half of respondents said that if AI gives them a clear or reassuring response about their health, they’re likely to accept it without questioning it.

Those who use AI for health purposes ask an average of nine health-related questions each week.

These respondents say they rely on it because it’s conveniently available at any time (37%), faster than seeing a doctor (31%) and provides reassurance about their health concerns (30%).

However, 28% of respondents say they only verify the answer they receive from AI less than half the time.

The trend extends to decisions about children

Among millennial parents who use AI for health purposes, 58% admit they have acted on AI-generated health advice for their children without first confirming it with a healthcare provider.

Many also said they would be comfortable solely relying on AI for a range of decisions involving their children’s health, including evaluating minor symptoms (80%), determining what type of care is needed (71%) and seeking medication guidance (71%).

Despite the confidence in AI, Americans often overlook how their input may affect the accuracy of the guidance it provides. Nearly eight in ten respondents (78%) did not recognize that the way a question is worded influences the answer AI provides.

More than half (53%) admitted they have reworded or adjusted their health question when they didn’t like the first answer they received, including 27% who say they always do so.

Many AI users also ask questions in ways that steer AI toward a desired response.

Thirty-eight percent said they describe symptoms and ask what could be wrong, while about a third ask whether a symptom could be connected to a condition they already suspect they have (34%) or whether a specific diagnosis could explain what they’re experiencing (32%).

“The survey indicates that people are often going to AI already hoping for a certain answer, whether that’s reassurance or confirmation of a fear,” said Dr. Maggie Williams, medical director of virtual primary care at MD Live by Evernorth. “That’s very different from how a doctor works through a symptom with a patient, asking questions, gathering context and ruling possibilities in or out before reaching a conclusion.”

Many overestimate what AI actually knows

The survey also found that many Americans overestimate how AI works in the first place.

One in five respondents believe that AI only pulls information from trusted medical sources (22%), and the same share of regular users believe AI factors in their personal medical history even when that information has never been provided.

At the same time, many respondents acknowledge they do not provide AI with a complete picture of their health when seeking guidance.

Forty-two percent admit they’ve even lied about who they’re submitting a health question about for privacy reasons.

More than three-quarters of regular users (76%) leave out their medical history, demographic details (76%) and personal information due to privacy concerns (81%).

As a result, many AI users report receiving answers that weren’t fully relevant to their circumstances.

Nearly six in 10 (59%) said they later realized health information they received from AI didn’t fully apply to their situation, and nearly half (49%) say they acted on that information anyway before discovering it wasn’t the right fit.

Human oversight remains important

Despite growing adoption of AI for health purposes, respondents expressed concerns about receiving incorrect advice (34%) and a lack of human oversight (31%).

One in four said they plan to use AI for more healthcare decisions in 2027, while 27% said they would trust AI-generated information more if it is reviewed by a doctor.

“The results show people will continue to turn to AI for their health care questions — and having people more engaged in their health is a good thing,” said Dr. Williams. “But healthcare providers add important clinical guidance by catching details a patient may not consider relevant, asking follow-up questions and putting the information into the context of that person’s health history. As we consider a patient’s full care journey, it’s important to understand how AI and physicians can come together to provide the clearest picture to patients while ensuring appropriate safeguards and clinical oversight.”

Read next: Study Finds 80% Missed Chatbot Errors Despite Participants’ Basic Knowledge of the Subject

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Study Finds 80% Missed Chatbot Errors Despite Participants’ Basic Knowledge of the Subject

By Radboud University | Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad

A chatbot that speaks naturally is more likely to be perceived by users as intelligent and useful, even if it spouts nonsense, research by communication scientists at Radboud University shows. An eloquent AI system that shares incorrect information is rated just as highly by users as a curt AI system that provides correct answers.

Image: Solen Feyissa - Unsplash

Most people are by now quite familiar with ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude and other chatbots: every day, people ask millions of questions and receive neatly formulated answers in return. Yet these language models still tend to run wild with so-called ‘hallucinations’: unreliable, dubious answers that are presented with great certainty as the truth. Communication scientist Marianna de Sá Siqueira and her colleagues investigated the effects of elegant language use on the credibility of chatbots.

Nonsense in fluent language

For the experiment, participants were shown one of four variants of a conversation with a chatbot about The Lord of the Rings. Two variants featured fluent sentences and human-like language, one of which gave correct answers and the other did not. In addition, there were two variants with short, businesslike answers, one of which provided entirely correct information whilst the other presented (subtly) fabricated facts.

Unsurprisingly, users were most positive about the chatbot with elegant language and correct answers. However, a chatbot that writes fluently but spouts factual nonsense was rated by participants as just as intelligent and pleasant as a chatbot that communicates in a stilted manner but does provide factually correct information. It also emerged that as many as 80 per cent of participants did not notice the errors at all, even though they had been selected in advance for their basic knowledge of The Lord of the Rings.

"Above all, it shows how easily people can be led astray and how quickly we come to trust something that is actually spouting nonsense," says Barbara Müller, associate professor and co-author of the study. "If a text sounds elegant and natural, people automatically attribute intelligence to it. You then subconsciously tend to think: this is fine, I don’t need to check it any further."

Blind trust

The research highlights the danger of blind trust in artificial intelligence. Professor and co-author Tibor Bosse says: "So-called language models such as GPT and Claude are primarily trained to produce statistically plausible and easy-to-read sentences. These systems do not always take the truth very seriously. They are designed to sound human and convincing, but whether the information is factually correct is of secondary importance."

"People used to complain that chatbots were annoying and knew nothing. Now they sound so clever that we’re too quick to believe them," says Bosse. According to him, this cannot be solved with a simple disclaimer at the outset. "Most chatbots show a single line of text at the start stating that the output may not be entirely accurate, but those companies are certainly not going to indicate of their own accord with every answer that the system is uncertain. If we really want to protect users from chatbots spouting nonsense, we need to, for example, oblige tech companies to make that uncertainty visible. If a chatbot itself expresses doubt, you prevent people from taking nonsense as the truth."

Literature reference:

de Sá Siqueira, M. A., Bosse, T., & Müller, B. C. N. (2026). Users’ perception of chatbot language fluency and hallucination. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 10, 100412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100412.

Read next: Deceptive Google Ads Generated Over 100 Million Impressions Despite Existing Safeguards, Some Running for Years

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Consumers Could Save 65% on Subscriptions Through Resellers, but at What Cost?

By Surfshark | Fact-Checked by Irfan Ahmad

Third-party subscription resellers offer access to popular digital services at prices well below official rates. But should consumers focus solely on the savings, or consider what could go wrong?

To explore this, Surfshark analyzed reseller subscriptions for 10 popular video, music, and online-learning platforms. The findings show that consumers could pay 65% less through resellers, saving an average of $8.53 per month. However, buying through third parties may expose customers to privacy risks and put revenue from official platforms and content creators at risk.

Image: Surfshark. CC BY

Across a sample of ten popular video, music, and online-learning subscriptions (priced on Cheapzy and Cheapsubs Store), reseller prices averaged $4.60 per month, compared with $13.13 for official plans. Consumers could therefore pay approximately 65% less through a reseller, equivalent to an average monthly saving of $8.53. However, lower prices can often involve trade-offs such as shared accounts, upfront annual payments, reduced access control, and reliance on an intermediary for customer support.

Cheap reseller subscriptions often break the service’s terms or rely on fraud, which puts consumers' accounts, data, and money at risk and takes revenue away from the official platforms and creators behind the content. For example, HBO Max Terms of Use states that you may not sell, copy, distribute, publish, or otherwise share your Account details except as expressly permitted by these Terms, including via social media platforms, online marketplaces, or subscription sharing websites or platforms.

Many reseller offers require customers to commit for a full year. Surfshark's analysis of two reseller websites found that the shortest available subscription period was 12 months for 8 of the 10 services in the study, while the remaining two had a minimum term of six months. These long-term offers create an attractive monthly price, but also expose customers to greater upfront risk than cancellable monthly plans. If access is terminated before the subscription ends, customers may have to rely on the reseller to restore the service or issue a refund.

Purchasing subscriptions through intermediaries can introduce additional data-privacy risks. The checkout process on one analyzed reseller platform requested customers’ full name, physical address, ZIP code, and email address, while another asked for full name, country, and WhatsApp number. Sharing personal data and payment information with a reseller company may increase consumers’ exposure to data breaches, spam, phishing, and targeted scams.

The potential reward from using resellers varies widely across services. Coursera showed the steepest average price drop at 86% below its official rate, while Apple Music and Spotify were 71% and 67% cheaper, respectively. At the lower end, HBO Max and Netflix had more modest reductions of 45% and 51%, with the remaining platforms falling between 53% and 63%.

Reseller platforms listed different prices for the same subscriptions. Disney+ was listed at $3.08 per month on one reseller website and $9.16 on another, a nearly threefold difference. Similar disparities appeared for HBO Max, with prices ranging from $2.50 to $7.50, and Netflix, from $3.33 to $5.41, while Prime Video cost $5.00 on both platforms. These differences show that consumers who do not compare resellers could pay considerably more, eroding their expected savings while taking on the same privacy and security risks.

Editor's Note: Figures may vary slightly due to rounding.

Read next: 

• Reddit's Logged-In Strategy Could Change How Millions Browse the Platform

• How to Exclude Apps From Siri AI and Limit Gemini's Access on Android

• From Fire Watch to Fab Tools: The First Graduates of an ASU Program Built for TSMC Arizona
by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Reddit's Logged-In Strategy Could Change How Millions Browse the Platform

By Fria Reyes, Privacy Guides | Fact-checked by Irfan Ahmad

Image: Appshunter IO - Unsplash

The CEO of Reddit announced that the site will be moving to a "primarily logged-in experience."

Reddit is one of the most highly-trafficked sites on the internet, earning its former tagline "the front page of the internet." Discussions on the site show up search results can commonly contain information you can't get elsewhere.

You never needed to log in to simply view content on Reddit before, but now the CEO is seemingly looking to change that.

Unsurprisingly, part of the reason cited for making the change is their ad business:

We’re making the change because it’s better for user experience, better for our ads business, is more in line with safety regulations, and more protective of Reddit data. And we can do this while continuing to ensure user privacy.

According to him, "Reddit is so big now that without some personalization, it's just not relevant. Or even worse, it just doesn't work."

The fact that every user previously saw the same thing is cited as a drawback. Personally, having the option to view Reddit neutrally and then log in for more personalization seems like the more logical option.

He also cites data scraping as a reason for the change.

Reddit had previously restricted access to unknown bots and crawlers in order to curb the onslaught of AI training scrapers, but with some exceptions like the Internet Archive.

Later, they decided to block the Internet Archive anyway because AI bots were scraping from the Wayback machine instead of directly from Reddit.

Then, they announced they would be closing public access to their API and RSS feeds.

They restricted access to old.reddit.com to only logged-in users in the same announcement.

You also may have noticed an increase in annoying popups asking you to download the Reddit app on mobile, something they've been doing for years at this point.

This announcement now brings that restriction to the main site. It's almost refreshing to see a CEO being so forthright that they want to be able to use your data to serve you personalized ads:

It will make it easier to adapt to emerging regulations around the world, and of course, more users being logged in allows us to deliver more relevant ads. This is better for business outcomes, but it's also better for users. A non-targeted ad is just a waste of space for everybody.

It's unclear what effect this will have on alternate Reddit frontends like Redlib.

The move comes amid declining search traffic. In his Q3 2026 shareholder letter, Reddit CEO Steve Huffman wrote:

"Our search referral traffic was down meaningfully in Q3, with the decline accelerating later in the quarter. The biggest impact was on logged-out and web traffic...".

Editor's Note: Additional information has been added to provide context alongside the originally published article.

Read next:

• How to Exclude Apps From Siri AI and Limit Gemini's Access on Android

• What would happen if the internet went down?

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

How to Exclude Apps From Siri AI and Limit Gemini's Access on Android

By Thorin Klosowski, Electronic Frontier Foundation | Fact-Checked by Irfan Ahmad

In the most recent update to Apple’s devices, iOS 27.2, the company has introduced a new setting to “Exclude Apps” from Siri AI, addressing a privacy concern raised by digital rights advocates including EFF.

One major concern with new AI features on devices is how those features interact with end-to-end encrypted content, particularly with secure messaging apps. Many AI features require cloud processing, and despite privacy protections engineered into these systems, the content of secure messaging apps may leave a user’s device without their knowledge. That changes the privacy concerns around using those tools. In a perfect world, users would be able to put a barrier up to ensure data from certain apps doesn’t leave the device. A key recommendation was:

You should be able to tell the operating system’s AI to not access an app, even if that comes at the “cost” of missing out on some features. The setting should be straightforward and easy to understand in ways the Gemini and Apple Intelligence controls currently are not.

At launch, the settings to control Siri AI’s app access behavior were pretty confusing. You had to toggle several options to block Siri AI off from accessing an app, or disable Siri AI entirely. Turning off Siri AI and reverting to Siri Classic is, for now, still a good option if you’d prefer to use the older version.

The most recent update is far more clear and does more to protect your data. And, just as expected, it comes at the cost of some features. That’s a good thing, actually. The features not working shows that the new setting is effective.

Here’s how to add apps to the exclusion list, once you’ve updated to 27.2:

• Open Settings > Siri > Excluded Apps
• Tap “Add Apps” and select any apps you’d like to add to the exclusion list

Now Siri AI cannot access the contents of the app. Excluding an app also means you may lose some features. For example, if you exclude the Apple Messages app, you will no longer be able to have Siri AI read or respond to messages for you. Even the “onscreen awareness” feature, where you invoke Siri and ask it for information about what you’re currently looking at, will not work anymore. For example, if you exclude Signal, you cannot invoke Siri and ask it to discern any information in the Signal app. You’ll just get these messages:

What’s the State of This on Android?

This update from Apple is also a good excuse to check in on the process on Android. It has improved a little, but is not as straightforward as Apple’s new settings, and lacks the ability to set the screen context feature per-app. But you do have some control over what Google's Gemini can access:

• Open up the Gemini app
• Tap your user photo, then Settings > Personal Intelligence > Connected Apps (or visit this link https://gemini.google.com/apps)
• Revoke access to any apps you do not want Gemini to have access to

Image: DIW. CC BY

This process seems to work well enough for some data and we like that it’s opt in, but it’s not exactly intuitive. For example, Signal doesn’t appear there because Signal doesn’t support Gemini’s app access feature at all. That means Gemini can’t access the content of Signal directly, which is good.

But Gemini can read notifications if you’ve enabled the “Device Assistance” Connected App (which you likely have, since that also enables basic features, like setting a timer—check under Settings > Personal Intelligence > Connected Apps), and it can use screen context unless you’ve disabled the “Use screen and app data” or “Analyze on-screen text” option in the Gemini/Android Settings which can be accessed via Device controls > Screen context (see screenshot).

Image: DIW. CC BY.

These two features may access the contents of the Signal app or notifications, if you choose to use them. We’d prefer a more hard-lined approach that reduces the chances of user error here: Google should give users the ability to turn these features off per app.

Apple clearly understands that some users want stronger controls over what Siri AI can and cannot access. However, operating systems could go further by offering the option to only use “on device” AI features, similar to what Samsung offered with its Galaxy AI. We’re happy to see this change and think all operating systems need to consider similar controls moving forward.

Read next: Tech Tips for Parents: A Guide to Online Privacy and Safety

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Apple Introduces Selfie Age Verification in iOS 27.2

By Fria Reyes, PrivacyGuides | Fact-Checked by Irfan Ahmad

Image: Andy Wang - Unsplash

With the release of iOS 27.2, Apple has introduced the option to submit a selfie for age estimation as an option to comply with age verification laws in certain regions.

The feature uses an age estimation AI model to determine if you're an adult or not. Apple says the age model runs locally on your device or with Apple's Private Cloud Compute, so theoretically neither Apple nor any third party should have access to your selfie.

To confirm that you're an adult, your selfie is analyzed using age-estimation models that run both on-device and on Private Cloud Compute, which extends the security and privacy of your Apple device into the cloud. The results are combined on your device. When your selfie is analyzed on your device and on Private Cloud Compute, it isn't accessible to anyone, not even Apple. Once your age is confirmed, your selfie is deleted and isn't retained in any form.

Previously, you could verify your age if your Apple account was old enough to meet the age requirements, by having a credit card attached to your account (debit cards don't work), or by scanning your passport, driver's license, or government ID.

All but the first method have their privacy problems: providing credit card details means giving identifiable information (although Apple already requires you to give payment information in order to download even free apps, so it's not much different than what most people already have to do).

Scanning your ID can expose sensitive personal documents to third parties. The online messaging platform Discord famously had a data leak of around 70,000 IDs from a third party they used to verify ages from ID photos.

Selfies can suffer from wildly differing effectiveness and security. The age verification in Discord was hilariously defeated using the in-game photo mode in Death Stranding.

The effectiveness depends entirely on how good the age estimation algorithm is, and there will always be a false-positive and false-negative rate.

Poorly-implemented selfie verification can have disastrous privacy consequences as well. A firm that handles age verification for companies like Roblox and ChatGPT, Persona, leaked their database of selfies and it was discovered over 269 checks were performed on faces, including if they look "suspicious."

It seems like Apple's version is much better in that regard, definitely better than having to send sensitive documents off to a third party.

If you live in Australia, Brazil, Singapore, South Korea, the UK, or Texas (United States), you'll have to verify your age, but if you're not from one of these regions you won't have to worry about it for now.

Read next: What would happen if the internet went down?

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

What would happen if the internet went down?

By Mahmoud Elkhodr, CQUniversity Australia

Fact-Checked by Irfan Ahmad.

Image: Dylann  Hendricks - Pexels

For many, the internet is feeling less secure these days, thanks to generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools making it easier than ever to exploit hidden security flaws.

Last week’s PHP incident is a great example. PHP is one of the main technologies that run in the background, supporting more than 70% of the websites we use every day. A critical vulnerability prompted many organisations to take their websites offline to secure them.

The national cyber security agency, Australian Signals Directorate, is also warning of rapidly evolving cyber threats. It issued more than 4,400 notifications about potentially malicious cyber activity in 2025–26, almost 80% more than the previous year.

In the wrong hands, AI tools can threaten the underlying systems the internet relies on, outpacing many organisations’ capability to patch them.

With all this on the horizon, it’s reasonable to ask: could failures similar to the PHP issue become widespread? Worse, could the internet itself be brought down?

Is there an off switch for the internet?

First, let’s establish there’s no big switch that turns the internet off. Why? Because the internet is not just one big box of technology. It’s not like your smartphone or TV that you can power on and off.

Instead, the internet is a global network of computers and other devices connected to each other, and it supports a collection of services.

Think of the applications you use every day, from browsing social media to sending emails or banking. For these services to run, computers use network infrastructure to exchange data. For example, when you look at a website hosted on a server in the United States, data travels between your computer or smartphone and that server through network connections.

These connections may use physical cables that run between continents to connect networks together, as well as wireless links (such as wifi) and satellites.

This network is like the roads between Melbourne and Brisbane. One road may be blocked, but there will usually be alternative routes, although there may be some travel interruptions or delays.

Australia’s submarine cable connections. Includes active cables and cables under construction. Cropped from TeleGeography’s 2026 map. CC BY-SA

Losing access to one internet system doesn’t necessarily mean losing access to others. But what happens when many of these systems depend on the same underlying technology?

These are known as shared dependencies. Think, for instance, of how we use Google or Microsoft accounts to access school, university or workplace services. A failure in the shared sign-in system could prevent us from accessing email, Word documents and online learning platforms at the same time.

What an internet outage would really look like

A complete internet blackout is highly unlikely, given its underlying infrastructure.

Interruptions to specific services, on the other hand, are both plausible and likely to continue to increase. If there was a cyber attack on healthcare systems, for example, a clinic might continue consultations but Medicare claims might be delayed.

A transport or banking app might be unavailable due to security risks, while trains could still run and card payments continue to work, assuming these services were not affected, as well.

Patching or recovery from cyber incidents can range from routine repairs to systems or equipment, to investigating compromised systems, which may involve complex digital forensic work.

The reach of an outage depends on which shared systems fail and whether alternatives are available. The examples below show how widely some digital services and technologies are used, and how a failure could affect our lives.

Selected services that rely on widely used shared technology. Sources checked October 2026. CC BY-ND

Preparing before something goes wrong

All this shows that the better we plan for interruptions to online services, the more resilient we can be.

For organisations and businesses, that means having a well-prepared and tested incident response plan. This plan would include clear criteria for when a system must be isolated or a service taken offline, alongside arrangements for maintaining essential operations, and a recovery plan.

The key is preparation, so that any service outage follows a pre-planned response rather than having to act in the moment. This can reduce the risk of a single vulnerability turning into a disaster.

How can I prepare for online service outages?

For users, the same principle applies. Preparedness is essential, and it starts now by identifying the services, apps or tools that would disrupt our lives or businesses if they became unavailable.

1. Keep essentials offline

Store important contact numbers, photos, receipts, booking details and essential documents such as medical prescriptions securely so you can access them even without an internet connection.

2. Identify alternatives

Find other ways to communicate, access your data, make a payment or complete an essential task if your usual service is unavailable. For example, if you normally sign in to a website through Google or Microsoft, check whether it offers another sign-in method and set it up, too. For payments, keep a physical card and a small cash reserve rather than relying entirely on your smartphone wallet.

3. Set up and test

Prepare backup arrangements and check that they work. For example, switch off your internet connection and open your saved documents to confirm they’re available locally, not just when you’re connected to the cloud. Many services rely on multi-factor authentication. Where available, generate backup sign-in codes and store them securely offline.

The internet itself is very unlikely to fail completely. But the individual services we all depend on are far more vulnerable. Whether an interruption becomes a brief inconvenience or a prolonged crisis depends on how well we prepare in advance – before anything goes wrong.

Mahmoud Elkhodr, Senior Lecturer in Information and Communication Technologies, CQUniversity Australia

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

Read next: AI poses three big types of risk – here’s how worried we should be about them

by External Contributor via Digital Information World