Global AI Adoption Reaches 16.3% in 2025 as North-South Divide Widens

The Microsoft AI Economy Institute released its AI Diffusion Report 2025 on January 8, 2026, tracking the use of generative AI tools worldwide. The study measures AI adoption as the share of consumers who used a generative AI product during the reported period. This metric is based on aggregated and anonymized Microsoft telemetry data, adjusted for differences in operating system and device-market share, internet penetration, and country populations.

According to the report, 16.3% of the global population used generative AI tools in the second half of 2025, up from 15.1% in the first half, representing an increase of 1.2 percentage points. This means roughly one in six people globally are now using these technologies.

The report highlights a growing disparity between regions. In the Global North, 24.7% of the working-age population used AI tools in H2 2025, compared to 14.1% in the Global South. The gap between the two regions widened from 9.8 percentage points in H1 to 10.6 percentage points in H2 2025. AI adoption in the Global North grew nearly twice as fast as in the Global South during this period.

At the country level, the United Arab Emirates leads, with 64.0% of the working-age population using AI, up from 59.4% in the first half of the year. Singapore follows at 60.9%, with Norway (46.4%), Ireland (44.6%), France (44.0%), and Spain (41.8%) completing the top six.

South Korea posted the largest ranking jump, moving from 25th to 18th place globally. Its adoption increased from 25.9% to 30.7%, representing the largest national gain in the reporting period. The United States has an adoption rate of 28.3%, falling from 23rd to 24th position, while in H2 2025 China reached 16.3%, India 15.7%, and Japan 19.1%. At the lower end, Cambodia recorded the smallest adoption at 5.1%.

Economy	H1 2025 AI Diffusion	H2 2025 AI Diffusion
United Arab Emirates	59.40%	64.00%
Singapore	58.60%	60.90%
Norway	45.30%	46.40%
Ireland	41.70%	44.60%
France	40.90%	44.00%
Spain	39.70%	41.80%
New Zealand	37.60%	40.50%
Netherlands	36.30%	38.90%
United Kingdom	36.40%	38.90%
Qatar	35.70%	38.30%
Laos	6.00%	6.70%
Armenia	6.20%	6.60%
Sri Lanka	6.20%	6.60%
Uzbekistan	5.70%	6.30%
Rwanda	6.00%	6.30%
Cuba	5.70%	6.10%
Afghanistan	5.10%	5.60%
Tajikistan	5.10%	5.60%
Turkmenist-an	5.10%	5.60%
Cambodia	4.60%	5.10%

The report notes that of the ten countries with the largest adoption gains, all are classified as high-income economies, underscoring that recent adoption growth remains concentrated in nations with established digital infrastructure.

Microsoft emphasizes that no single metric is perfect. The AI Economy Institute continues refining its measurement of AI diffusion globally and expects to complement its current metric with additional indicators as they become available.

All in all, the findings show that while global AI adoption is rising, the benefits are unevenly distributed, with high-income countries and digitally advanced regions leading the growth. Bridging this divide remains a key challenge as AI usage expands worldwide.

Notes: This post was drafted with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed, edited, and published by humans.

Read next:

• AI Tools Increasingly Used for Search, But Users Still Verify Results

• YouTube Updates Search Filters, Removes Some Sorting Options

• GoDaddy Customer Reports Renewal Charges Beyond Maximum Domain Term

by Asim BN via Digital Information World

YouTube Updates Search Filters, Removes Some Sorting Options

YouTube has updated its search filter system, introducing new labels and options while removing several existing sorting features, according to an announcement posted on 8th January 2026 by Hank from TeamYouTube.

The changes affect how users filter and prioritize search results on the platform.

What Changed

YouTube added a Shorts filter under the Type menu, allowing users to choose between short-form videos and longer videos when searching.

The “Sort By” menu has been renamed to “Prioritize.” Within this Prioritize menu, the former “View count” option is now labeled “Popularity.” YouTube said this option uses view count and other relevance signals, such as watch time, to rank videos for a specific search query.

According to TeamYouTube, two filters were removed:

• “Upload Date – Last Hour”

• “Sort by Rating”

In the previous version of YouTube’s search filters, users could also sort results directly by Upload date, View count, or Rating, and could filter videos uploaded in the last hour (but it is not the case anymore).

In the updated version, the Upload Date section now only offers Today, This week, This month, and This year. The Prioritize section now contains only Relevance and Popularity, and the “Sort by Upload date” option is no longer available as a sorting method.

Why YouTube Made the Changes

TeamYouTube said the filter menu was simplified to make the search experience more intuitive. The company stated that some options were removed because they were not working as expected and had led to user complaints (YouTube did not provide specific examples of the issues in the announcement.).

YouTube also said users can still find recent videos using the remaining Upload Date filters and can find widely viewed content using the Popularity option.

User Responses

Many users in the comment section expressed dissatisfaction with the removal of the “Sort by Upload date” and “Last Hour” options.

Several said they relied on chronological sorting to find newly uploaded content. Others said the new system makes it harder to locate recent videos because results are no longer ordered strictly by upload time.

Some users asked for a recency option to be added to the Prioritize menu. Others said the current filters return unrelated or older content when searching for recent uploads.

A smaller number of users thanked YouTube for the update and welcomed the changes.

YouTube’s Position

In the announcement, TeamYouTube invited users to share feedback and directed them to the Help Center for more information on using search filters. No additional responses addressing the specific concerns about the removed options were included in the post.

Notes: This post was drafted with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed, edited/fact-checked, and published by humans. 

Read next: 

• GoDaddy Customer Reports Renewal Charges Beyond Maximum Domain Term

• Why does time go by so fast, and how can we slow it down? (Q&A)

by Ayaz Khan via Digital Information World

GoDaddy Customer Reports Renewal Charges Beyond Maximum Domain Term

A GoDaddy customer reported that the company’s checkout system accepted multiple domain renewal payments even after the domain had already reached the maximum registration period allowed by registry rules.

The issue occurred on January 9–10, 2026, while the customer was managing renewals for the domain. According to the customer, the domain’s expiry date had already been extended to April 21, 2035, which appears to align with the commonly enforced 10-year maximum future registration limit.

Image: DIW

Despite this, the customer was able to place additional renewal orders through GoDaddy’s checkout system. These orders were processed successfully, and payments were charged. However, the domain’s expiry date did not extend beyond April 21, 2035.

The customer said that no on-screen warning appeared during checkout to indicate that the maximum renewal limit had been reached. After noticing that the expiry date remained unchanged, the customer contacted GoDaddy’s live support team to seek clarification.

During the support conversation, representatives initially stated that the renewal system was functioning correctly. After further review of the account’s renewal history, support acknowledged that once a domain reaches the maximum allowable term, additional renewal charges should not be accepted.

GoDaddy support later confirmed that at least one of the extra renewal orders had exceeded the allowed registration period and would be eligible for a refund. A case note was created for further review of the customer’s account to check whether other orders placed that day were also affected.

When asked whether customers would be notified about the issue, support representatives said the matter would be escalated to the relevant internal team. However, no specific timeline or communication plan was provided.

Domain registrars typically enforce a maximum 10-year registration limit based on registry policies. Most domain management systems either block further renewals or display a warning message when users attempt to exceed this limit.

The customer’s experience suggests that GoDaddy’s checkout system may allow renewal payments to be processed even when a domain cannot be extended further, without clearly informing the user at the point of purchase.

As of publication, GoDaddy has not issued a public statement regarding the matter. Digital Information World has also contacted the company’s public relations team for clarification. The publication will update the story if a response is received.

Notes: This post was drafted with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed/fact-checked, edited, and published by humans.

Read next:

• Why does time go by so fast, and how can we slow it down? (Q&A)

• AI Tools Increasingly Used for Search, But Users Still Verify Results
by Asim BN via Digital Information World

Why does time go by so fast, and how can we slow it down? (Q&A)

By Audrey Breen - Senior Associate Director of Communications School of Education and Human Development audreybreen@virginia.edu 434-924-0809

Image: DIW-Aigen

A UVA expert says efficiency in our daily routines can make time seem to fly, but there are steps we can take to make time last a little bit longer.

If ringing in the new year came too quickly, you’re not alone. Time does seem to move faster as you get older.

According to Jamie Jirout, who studies curiosity and learning at the University of Virginia, the more efficient we are with our days, the less memorable they are.

“We tend to have a lot of routines and habits in our daily lives,” said Jirout, an associate professor in UVA’s School of Education and Human Development. “When we’re on autopilot, time can feel like it passes quickly.”

But Jirout said there are things we can do to make time feel like it’s slowing down. We sat down with Jirout for a quick chat on how.

Q. Why did it seem like a year took forever when we were kids?

A. When we are young, there is so much changing in what we know about the world, and the experiences we are having are so new, we don’t know what to expect. The experiences when you are 5 are much more likely to be new and require a lot more cognitive effort to process.

We attend to a lot more when we are young, partly because we aren’t good at controlling attention, but also because we don’t yet know what is important to pay attention to. We don’t know what to ignore and thus pay closer attention to more details. This leads to encoding more details and more events during experiences compared to adults.

This helps our brain create more impressions or bits of information we can use to recreate memories, which makes it feel like time had more happening when we remember it.

Q. Why does time feel like it speeds up as we age?

A. As we get older, we have a much more well-developed understanding of the world. Some of what we do becomes automatic, and a lot of what we do is more predictable because we’ve learned how the world works.

This means we’ve learned what is important to pay attention to, and we don’t pay as much attention to the other stuff. Because there’s less novelty in our experiences, we don’t create as many new, distinctive memories. This leads to the feeling of fewer things happening, which can feel like time is passing faster.

Q. What can we do to make it seem like time slows down?

A. Time feels slower when we pay closer attention and when we experience new or meaningful activities.

Mindfulness is a great method for paying more attention to what is going on and being in the moment. I thought “mindfulness” meant meditation. But I realized that being mindful can be as simple as noticing what is going on around you and really being present in the moment.

I love taking the time to look up in trees and at the sky, to notice things around me that I don’t need to pay attention to to accomplish what I’m doing. These are ways of keeping us off of “autopilot” so we take in more details of our experiences.

We can also do new things that are less familiar to us, or change each time we do them, to make the experiences more distinct. In my family, we love to play board games. This deeper cognitive engagement can produce richer encoding of memories and memorable landmarks, helping it feel like the time lasted longer.

Q. How else can we benefit from adding novel activities to our daily lives?

A. Novelty doesn’t just help with memory and time perception; it can support learning, motivation and cognitive well-being. Because new activities require active thinking, we are strengthening our attention and memory systems.

Engaging in new or challenging experiences – whether learning a hobby, exploring a new place, trying a creative activity or meeting new people – can help maintain flexible thinking and support overall brain health. As we age, this can contribute to cognitive reserve, mental resources associated with healthier cognitive aging.

It’s also a great way to meet new people and discover things you like – or don’t – and a way to learn more about yourself. And if you discover new things you enjoy, that can lead to continued learning and sources of enjoyment, activating reward pathways in the brain and potentially increasing curiosity.

Q. How can a busy person with limited time add novelty to life?

A. Adding novelty doesn’t need to be a big thing. It can be as small as trying a new recipe, taking a different route to work, playing a new game or sport. These can add meaningful variety to our days and help life feel more spacious and memorable.

This post was originally published on UVA Today on January 7, 2026, and is republished here with permission.

Read next:

• AI Tools Increasingly Used for Search, But Users Still Verify Results

• How to Let AI Think With You, Not Instead of You

• How doubting your doubts may increase commitment to goals

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

AI Tools Increasingly Used for Search, But Users Still Verify Results

The 2026 AI and Search Behavior Study by Eight Oh Two examined how people use artificial intelligence tools for finding information online. The survey included 500 participants who were already familiar with and used AI tools. Data was collected in November 2025.

The study found that 37% of respondents typically start their searches with AI tools such as ChatGPT instead of traditional search engines such as Google. 62% said they choose AI because it provides quick, summarized responses rather than "long lists of websites". 60% reported that AI answers are clearer and more helpful than traditional search results.

Traditional search engines are still preferred for certain types of information. 47% of respondents use them for product reviews and prices, 44% for news and recent events, 44% for images and videos, and 35% for health or medical information.

Confidence in AI varies. 80% of participants said they feel “very” or “somewhat” confident that AI provides unbiased information. However, 85% said they “always,” “often,” or “sometimes” double-check AI answers using other sources.

Survey from Eight Oh Two also shows how consumers trust different information sources. AI tools see 21% complete trust, search engines 19%, social media 16%, brand/company websites 19%, news outlets 13%, while friends and family lead with 27% complete trust.

Source/Platform	Completely Trust	Somewhat Trust	Neutral	Somewhat Distrust	Completely Distrust
AI tools (ChatGPT, Gemini, etc.)	21%	47%	24%	7%	2%
Google or other search engines	19%	56%	19%	4%	1%
Social media (TikTok, Reddit, YouTube)	16%	30%	29%	19%	6%
Brand or company websites	19%	49%	25%	5%	1%
News sites or media outlets	13%	45%	27%	11%	4%
Friends / family recommendations	27%	50%	21%	2%	less than 1%

In the coming year, 63% said they expect to use AI more, while 59% believe AI will become their main way of finding information. At the same time, 50% said better fact-checking and source citations are the most important improvements they want from AI tools.

The study reflects the behavior of people who already use AI tools and does not represent all internet users.

Notes: This post was drafted with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed, edited, and published by humans. Read next:

Read next:

• UK Study Finds Popular AI Tools Provide Inconsistent Consumer Advice

• OpenAI Unveils ChatGPT Health as a Dedicated Experience for Health and Wellness Questions
by Ayaz Khan via Digital Information World

OpenAI Unveils ChatGPT Health as a Dedicated Experience for Health and Wellness Questions

OpenAI on Jan. 7, 2026, announced the launch of ChatGPT Health, a dedicated experience within ChatGPT designed to help people access and review health and wellness information, according to the company’s published release.

Image: Openai

ChatGPT Health brings health conversations, connected data, and files into a separate space with added privacy protections. OpenAI said the feature is intended to support, not replace, medical care and is not designed for diagnosis or treatment. The company said health is already one of the most common uses of ChatGPT, with more than 230 million people globally asking health and wellness questions each week based on their de-identified analysis.

The experience allows users to optionally connect medical records and wellness apps (such as Apple Health) so responses can reference connected information when relevant. Medical Records access is available only in the United States, requires users to be over 18, and is enabled through a partnership with "b.well". Apple Health integration requires iOS, while Android support "is coming soon" (as per OpenAI help page).

OpenAI said Health operates as a separate space within ChatGPT, with health chats, memories, and files kept isolated from other conversations. Health chats, files, and memories are not used to train OpenAI’s foundation models. Users can disconnect apps, delete Health memories, and manage permissions at any time, with third-party apps turned off by default.

ChatGPT Health is available via a waitlist for users with ChatGPT Free, Go, Plus, and Pro plans, excluding the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Notes: This post was drafted with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed, edited, and published by humans.

Read next: Decentralized social media platforms unlock authentic consumer feedback
by Asim BN via Digital Information World

Decentralized social media platforms unlock authentic consumer feedback

By Eric Hollenbeck, Carson College of Business

Businesses looking for clearer insight into how consumers truly feel about their products, campaigns or brand decisions may find more authentic reactions on decentralized social media platforms, according to new research from Washington State University.

The study, which was published in the European Journal of Marketing, found that people express stronger emotions and engage in less self-censorship on decentralized platforms than on traditional, centralized sites. Centralized platforms — such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and X (formerly Twitter) — are owned and operated by single corporations that control content and user data. Decentralized platforms like Mastodon, Bluesky, Odysee and Signal offer users greater anonymity and autonomy.

Image: Yohan Marion / Unsplash

“In many centralized platforms, people think twice before posting because they know their activity is monitored or tied to a public identity,” said Mesut Cicek, scholarly associate professor of marketing in the Carson College of Business and corresponding author. “On decentralized platforms, users feel freer to express their true opinions, and that leads to more candid, emotionally rich reactions.”

Electronic word-of-mouth plays a critical role in how audiences respond to brands, yet people may soften or filter their reactions on platforms where their identity is more visible or tightly monitored. To examine how platform design influences online expression, the research team conducted surveys, controlled simulations and analyzed real-world social media content.

In an initial study, participants assigned to either a centralized or decentralized environment were asked how comfortable they felt sharing honest opinions. Those in the decentralized group reported feeling more autonomous and willing to express their genuine views.

The researchers then tested whether those perceptions would translate into actual behavior. Cicek and his co-authors built a mock social platform that allowed them to manipulate whether participants believed they were posting in a centralized or decentralized space. In this controlled setting, participants responded to identical prompts. Those who believed they were using a decentralized platform wrote comments with stronger emotional intensity and less hesitation, demonstrating how platform structure can directly shape expression.

A third study analyzed more than 26,000 comments posted by the same video creators who shared identical videos on both a centralized platform and a decentralized counterpart. The researchers found that comments on decentralized platforms were more affective, direct and expressive — even when the content and the creators were the same. This pattern suggests that the platform environment, not the message itself, influences how openly people communicate.

“We wanted to see if platform structure truly shapes expression, and it does,” Cicek said. “Even when the content is the same and the audience is similar, decentralization increases emotional expression.”

As decentralized social networks continue to grow in popularity, Cicek said companies, marketers and policymakers may increasingly rely on these environments to anticipate consumer concerns and make more informed decisions about product development and communication strategy. Additional co-authors include Serdar Yayla, assistant professor at California State University, Los Angeles; Omer Cem Kutlubay, associate professor at the University of Arkansas–Fort Smith; and Kunter Gunasti, associate professor of marketing at Washington State University.

This article was originally published on Washington State University News on January 6, 2026 and republished with permission; Microsoft Copilot was used for light copy editing.

Read next:

• Understanding Online Rage: Why Digital Anger Feels Amplified

• We’re talking about AI all wrong. Here’s how we can fix the narrative

• WhatsApp Updates Group Chats, While Testing Parental Controls on Android

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

WhatsApp Updates Group Chats, While Testing Parental Controls on Android

WhatsApp on Jan. 7, 2026, announced new features for group chats, expanding tools that allow users to manage conversations and express context within shared spaces, according to an official WhatsApp blog post.

Image: Whatsapp

The announcement introduces member tags, text stickers, and enhanced event reminders for group chats. Member tags allow users to assign a role or identifier that is visible within a specific group and can differ from one group to another. The Meta-owned messaging app said the feature is intended to provide clearer context about participants without changing account profiles.

Text stickers allow users to turn typed words into stickers through Sticker Search. Newly created text stickers can be added directly to sticker packs without first sending them in a chat. WhatsApp said this is designed to help messages stand out visually within conversations.

The update also adds expanded event reminders. When creating an event in a group chat, users can now set custom early reminders for participants. WhatsApp said this is meant to help group members remember scheduled activities, whether in person or online.

These features join existing group chat capabilities already available on WhatsApp, including screen sharing, large file sharing of up to 2GB, HD media sharing, and voice chats.

Separately, as per WABetaInfo (WBI), WhatsApp is testing and developing additional features through its Android beta program. In WhatsApp beta for Android version 2.26.1.28, some beta testers can share recent group chat history with new members. The feature is optional, disabled by default, limited to a maximum of 100 messages, and protected by end-to-end encryption.

In a another beta version, 2.26.1.30, as pe WBI, WhatsApp is working on primary controls that would allow parents to manage secondary accounts with limited features, including default contacts-only messaging and calling restrictions. This parental control functionality remains under development and is not yet available for public testing.

Digital Information World contacted WhatsApp but the company did not provide timelines for wider availability of the beta features. We'll update this post if we get any response.

Notes: This post was drafted with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed, edited, and published by humans.

Read next:

• We’re talking about AI all wrong. Here’s how we can fix the narrative

• Why are older adults more likely to share misinformation online?
by Ayaz Khan via Digital Information World

We’re talking about AI all wrong. Here’s how we can fix the narrative

Pablo Sanguinetti, IE University

Image: DIW-Aigen

Artificial Intelligence (AI) isn’t just made up of data, chips and code – it’s also the product of the metaphors and narratives we use to talk about it. The way we represent this technology determines how the public imagination understands it and, by extension, how people design it, use it, and its impact on society at large.

Worryingly, many studies show that the predominant representations of AI – anthropomorphic “assistants”, artificial brains, and the omnipresent humanoid robot – have little basis in reality. These images may appeal to businesses and journalists, but they are rooted in myths that distort the essence, abilities and limitations of current AI models.

If we represent AI in misleading ways, we will struggle to truly understand it. And if we don’t understand it, how can we ever hope to use it, regulate it, and make it work in ways that serve our shared interests?

The myth of autonomous tech

Distorted representations of AI are part of a common misconception that the academic Langdon Winner dubbed “autonomous technology” back in 1977: the idea that machines have taken on a life of their own and act independently on society in a purposeful and often destructive way.

AI gives us the perfect incarnation of this, as the narratives surrounding it flirt with the myth of intelligent, autonomous creation – as well as the punishment for assuming this divine function. It is an ancient trope, one that has given us stories ranging from the myth of Prometheus to Frankenstein, Terminator, and Ex Machina.

This myth is already hinted at in the ambitious term “artificial intelligence”, which was coined by computer scientist John McCarthy in 1955. The label took hold in spite of – or perhaps because of – the various misunderstandings it causes.

As Kate Crawford succinctly argues in her Atlas of AI: “AI is neither artificial nor intelligent. Rather, artificial intelligence is both embodied and material, made from natural resources, fuel, human labor, infrastructures, logistics, histories, and classifications.”

Most problems with the dominant narrative of AI can be attributed to this tendency to represent it as an independent, almost alien entity, as something unfathomable that exists beyond our control or decisions.

Misleading metaphors

The language used by many media outlets, institutions, and even experts to discuss AI is deeply flawed. It is riddled with anthropomorphism and animism, images of robots and brains, (always) fabricated stories about machines rebelling or acting inexplicably, and debates about their supposed consciousness. This is all heaped onto a prevailing sense of urgency, panic and inevitability.

This vision culminates in the narrative that has driven the development of AI since its inception: the promise of general artificial intelligence (GAI), a supposed human or superhuman intelligence that will change the world and even our species. Companies such as Microsoft and OpenAI and technology leaders like Elon Musk have been predicting GAI as an ever-imminent milestone for some time now.

However, the truth is that the path to this technology is unclear, and there is not even consensus on whether it will ever be possible.

Narrative, power and the AI bubble

This is not just a theoretical problem. The deterministic and animistic view of AI constructs a predetermined future, as myths of autonomous technology inflate expectations and divert attention from the real challenges AI poses.

This hinders a more informed and open public debate about the technology. A landmark report from the AI Now Institute refers to the promise of AI as “the argument to end all arguments”, a way of avoiding any questioning of the technology itself.

In addition to a mixture of exaggerated expectations and fears, these narratives are also responsible for inflating the AI economic bubble that various reports and technology leaders are warning about. If the bubble exists and eventually bursts, we should remember that it was fuelled not only by technical achievements, but also a narrative that was as misleading as it was compelling.

Changing the narrative

To repair the broken AI narrative, we have to bring its cultural, social, and political dimensions to the fore. We have to leave behind the myth of autonomous technology and start seeing AI as an interaction between technology and people.

In practice, this means shifting the focus in several ways: from technology to the humans who guide it; from a techno-utopian future to a present that is still under construction; from apocalyptic visions to real and present risks; from presenting AI as unique and inevitable to an emphasis on autonomy, choice, and diversity among people.

We can drive these shifts in a number of ways. In my book, Technohumanism: A Narrative and Aesthetic Design for Artificial Intelligence, I propose several stylistic recommendations to escape the narrative of autonomous AI. These include avoiding using it as the subject of a sentence when it is being used as a tool, and not using anthropomorphic verbs when we talk about it.

Playing with the term “AI” also helps us see how much words can change our perception of technology. Try replacing it in a sentence with, for example, “complex task processing”, one of the least ambitious but most accurate names considered during its early days.

Important debates on AI, from those on regulation to its impact on education and employment, will continue to rest on shaky ground until we correct the way we talk about it. Designing a narrative that highlights the social and technical reality of AI is an urgent ethical challenge. Successfully confronting this challenge will benefit technology and society alike.

Pablo Sanguinetti, Profesor de IA y Pensamiento Crítico, IE University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. This article was originally published in Spanish.

Read next: 

• Why are older adults more likely to share misinformation online?

• Understanding Online Rage: Why Digital Anger Feels Amplified

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Why are older adults more likely to share misinformation online?

They have greater tendency to seek out, believe material that conforms to pre-existing views, expert says.

Originally published by Sy Boles Harvard Staff Writer on the Harvard Gazette, as per Media Relations guidelines page.

Image: Andrea Piacquadio / pexels

Older adults tend to do well at identifying falsehoods in experiments, but they’re also likelier than younger adults to like and share misinformation online.

That paradox was at the heart of a recent lecture as part of the Misinformation Speaker Series at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.

The answer, according to Ben Lyons, a University of Utah communications assistant professor who studies media, politics, and misinformation, is partisanship and congeniality bias, essentially the tendency to seek out and believe information that supports pre-existing views while avoiding and dismissing conflicting data.

“Older adults show a lot more congeniality bias,” said Lyons, who published a paper in 2024 in Public Opinion Quarterly on the issue. “Older adults value accuracy, at least in their self-reports, but these age-linked political traits — interest and sophistication and intensity of partisan effects— might reshape what counts as accurate in practice, filtering truth through partisan identity.”

In his study, Lyons analyzed survey experiments of about 10,000 respondents and internet usage data from about 4,500 people. He found that adults older than 60 were about as skeptical of false headlines, on average, as younger people.

Despite that, older adults tended to be likelier to read and share misinformation than younger ones.

“Digital literacy does in fact decrease with age, not surprisingly.” — Ben Lyons

Lyons investigated common explanations for the paradox: that older adults have poorer digital literacy and that cognitive decline in some cases may exert a greater influence on decision-making.

The data, he found, were not so straightforward.

“Digital literacy does in fact decrease with age, not surprisingly,” Lyons said. “But news literacy is always higher in these samples; news literacy increases with age.”

In other words, adults over 60 had less skill and understanding of online environments, but more understanding of how news is produced.

Lyons also questioned the common wisdom that cognitive aging could make older adults more vulnerable to accepting online misinformation.

Cognitive aging is not all decline, he said. Older adults might lose episodic memory, processing speed, and fluid abilities, but they often score higher on tests of semantic memory, general knowledge, and emotional regulation — characteristics that might actually help them understand and engage with misinformation online.

To test that theory, Lyons looked at cognitive reflection — the ability to override initial responses that are intuitive but incorrect. That faculty increases with age, Lyons said, but the link between cognitive reflection and discernment decreases with age.

“Having greater cognitive reflection is associated with much more rejection of false news for younger adults … and for older adults, we see much less of an effect of cognitive reflection on their discernment.”

The same is true for emotional reactivity to the news.

“Older adults tend to rely more on prior knowledge, as a rule, as a general finding, to reduce cognitive load.” — Ben Lyons

Busting those myths helped Lyons home in on his theory of partisanship and congeniality bias.

“Older adults tend to rely more on prior knowledge, as a rule, as a general finding, to reduce cognitive load,” he explained. “But their prior knowledge, based on this consistently stronger partisanship, at least in the political domain, is more likely to be politically biased.”

But ultimately, Lyons noted, while a greater proportion of older adults share misinformation online than younger cohorts, the total percentage is still small.

Lyons was the final guest in the Shorenstein Center’s Misinformation Speaker Series in fall 2025. The series will resume this spring.

Also read:

• Understanding Online Rage: Why Digital Anger Feels Amplified

• From Kathmandu to Casablanca, a generation under surveillance is rising up

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Understanding Online Rage: Why Digital Anger Feels Amplified

New research from a UBC Okanagan alumna suggests that difference is not accidental—it’s shaped by context, distance and the design of online spaces themselves.

Image: Sena Aykut / Pexels

Clare Wiznura focused her interdisciplinary studies master’s thesis on identifying anger in online environments, analyzing how people express frustration, hostility and outrage across social media and survey-based interactions.

“One of the biggest differences we saw was how controlled people were when they believed they were speaking directly to someone,” Wiznura says. “Even when participants were clearly upset, they were more measured. They asked questions. They avoided using all capital letters and insults. That restraint largely disappeared in more general online spaces.”

The research examined both general online commentary and direct, interpersonal communication to understand how language changes depending on who is being addressed—and how.

Wiznura’s research found that general social media comment sections were far more likely to contain what researchers describe as “hot” anger—language that is loud, aggressive and emotionally charged. In contrast, interpersonal exchanges showed greater emotional regulation, even when disagreement or frustration was present.

“This aligns with something we intuitively know,” Wiznura says. “Online, there’s often a decreased sense of social presence. People feel more comfortable being mean in ways they likely wouldn’t be in person, even though we know these are still real people on the other side.”

A key takeaway from the research was the importance of context. More than half of survey participants said they could not confidently interpret whether language was angry or hostile without knowing what it was responding to, or what relationship existed between speakers.

“The same words could be interpreted very differently depending on the situation,” says Wiznura. “People repeatedly said, ‘If this was the context, then, yes, it’s angry. If it’s another context, maybe not.’ That makes emotional language much harder to categorize than we often assume.”

The research also examined rage bait—content intentionally designed to provoke outrage and drive engagement. Wiznura notes that rage bait does not require the original poster to be angry themselves.

“Rage bait has become a significant factor in how anger circulates online,” says Dr. Christine Schreyer, Professor of Anthropology and Wiznura’s supervisor. “People may not be angry themselves, but they are deliberately provoking anger in others. Clare’s research highlights how important it is to account for that dynamic when studying language and emotion in digital spaces.”

The research arrives amid growing public conversation about online outrage and engagement-driven platforms.

Oxford University Press named “rage bait” its Word of the Year for 2025, reflecting how widely the concept has entered everyday language. For Dr. Schreyer, the label is useful but the behaviour behind it has been visible for longer.

“Words of the Year reflect an emphasis in society, something that represents a snapshot in time. The fact that rage bait is Oxford’s 2025 Word of the Year indicates the cultural significance of online discourse in contemporary society,” says Dr. Schreyer.

Wiznura is careful not to overextend the findings, particularly when asked to draw broad conclusions about society.

“It’s very easy to feel connected through social media, but that connection is fundamentally different from in-person relationships,” says Wiznura. “There’s real value in what we sometimes call ‘third spaces’—libraries, community centres, places where people gather without a screen in between.

“We’ve known for a while that online spaces impact how we communicate. Understanding how anger works in those environments is a necessary step toward engaging with each other more thoughtfully.”

Media Contact: David Bidwell - Writer/Content Strategist - University Relations - Tel: 2508083042 - E-mail: david.bidwell@ubc.ca

This article was originally published on The University of British Columbia (UBC) Okanagan News. The title has been changed with the help of AI. Republished under CC BY-SA 4.0.

Read next:

• From Kathmandu to Casablanca, a generation under surveillance is rising up

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

From Kathmandu to Casablanca, a generation under surveillance is rising up

Amani Braa, Université de Montréal

Image: Heather Mount / Unsplash

In 2025, youth-led protests erupted everywhere from Morocco to Nepal, Madagascar and Europe. A generation refused to remain silent in the face of economic precariousness, corruption and eroding democratic norms and institutions.

Although they arose in different contexts, all the protests were met with the same playbook of responses: repression, contempt and suspicion towards youth dismissed as irresponsible.

Mobilization across several continents

In Morocco, the #Gen212 movement, which originated on social media, denounced the high cost of living, police violence, muzzling of civil society and lack of opportunities. This mobilization, which began digitally on platforms such as Discord, quickly spilled over from screens into concrete action taken in several cities across the country.

In Madagascar, young people took to the streets at the end of September in a climate of high pre-election tensions to demand real change before being violently repressed. In Nepal, thousands of young people occupyied public spaces, demanding genuine democracy and an end to the corruption that is undermining the country.

In Europe, too, youth are mobilizing against authoritarian excesses and persistent inequalities. In Italy, France, and Spain, young people are taking to the streets to protest gender-based violence, unpopular reforms and police repression and to demand recognition of their political rights.

Although the contexts are very different, these mobilizations share the same goal of refusing injustice and demanding that marginalized voices be heard.

Authorities call youth immature and irrational

These movements are often treated as fleeting emotional outbursts, even though they express structured political demands for social justice, freedom, economic security, access to dignity and participation.

Yet the responses by governments have been heading in a totally different direction — towards increased repression. Young protesters are being monitored, arrested, stigmatized and sometimes accused of treason or of being manipulated by foreign powers.

In Morocco, for example, nearly 2,500 young people have been prosecuted, with more than 400 convicted — including 76 minors — since September 2025. The charges include “group rebellion,” “incitement to commit crimes” and participating in armed gatherings. More than 60 prison sentences have been handed down, some of them for up to 15 years.

This mass judicialization of a peaceful movement has been denounced by Amnesty International, which points to excessive uses of force and the increasing criminalization of protest.

In Madagascar, the response was just as brutal: at least 22 deaths, more than 100 injuries and hundreds of arbitrary arrests were recorded during youth demonstrations against corruption and electoral irregularities.

According to the United Nations, security forces used rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse the crowds. The crisis culminated in the flight of President Andry Rajoelina, which confirmed that, far from defusing the conflict, the crackdown revealed institutions’ fragility in the face of politicized youth.

A discourse referring to parental responsibility

The actions of the young people who have been arrested during recent protests are often attributed to lack of parental responsibility.

In Morocco, for example, the Home Office has called on parents to supervise and guide their children. In Indonesia, the Philippines, Peru and Nepal alike, authorities call on parents to supervise, guide or restrain their children, shifting the political conflict into the family sphere.

This trend illustrates what national security researcher Fatima Ahdash calls the “familialization” of politics: instead of addressing the social, economic and ideological causes of protests, governments turn them into a matter of home education, depoliticizing, individualizing and privatizing the protests in the process. Families become the prism through which young people’s political behaviour is interpreted, evaluated and sometimes punished.

This response isn’t new, but it’s taking on unprecedented proportions in a global context of democratic fragility and authoritarian recentring of power marked by the restriction of freedoms, the control of protest and the criminalization of social movements.

States are adopting a defensive stance, treating youth engagement not as a civic resource but as a threat to be neutralized. This hardened stance is symptomatic of a deeper problem: youth are refusing to be satisfied with empty promises and forced compromises, but they face powers unable to recognize the legitimacy of their anger and aspirations..

Silencing criticism

Image: Jack Skinner / Unsplash

Repression in response to criticism has become a tactic governments use to avoid being questioned. But this strategy is becoming increasingly fragile.

That’s because first, it denies the legitimacy of the anger being expressed. Secondly, it ignores a fundamental reality: that this anger is rooted in collective experiences of social decline, discrimination and political powerlessness. It’s not empty anger. It expresses a demand for social, political and environmental change that institutions are struggling to grasp.

Unlike mobilizations likr the Arab Spring of 2011, the current protests led by Generation Z are horizontal; they are decentralized, have no identifiable leaders, and are rooted in the urgency of the present.

They also originate on social media, organize themselves into autonomous micro-cells, reject structuring ideological narratives, and favour a politics of everyday life — meaning they reject precariousness while calling for immediate dignity and concrete justice.

Their esthetic is fluid, borrowing from digital codes — memes, manga, visual remixes — and their forms circulate through emotional affinities rather than imitation. This makes them elusive to the powers that be, but powerfully viral.

These movements stir up political emotions (anger, but also hope) and create new languages, digital practices and forms of engagement that often lie outside traditional parties.

One unifying visual element keeps coming up: the black flag with a skull and crossbones wearing a straw hat, a symbol taken from the manga One Piece. More than just a nod to pop culture, this Jolly Roger embodies a thirst for justice, freedom and rebellion shared by a globalized youth, from Kathmandu to Rome.

In Serbia, for example, a student uprising in early 2025 with no visible leader united thousands of people around a simple slogan: more democracy. The movement spread to other generations, without any party or hierarchy, challenging a government that tried to stifle the protests through force and stigmatization.

Evading censorship

Meanwhile, the young people of Cuba Decide are mobilizing on digital platforms to demand a democratic referendum in the midst of constant surveillance. Thanks to encrypted tools and alliances abroad, they are circumventing censorship and amplifying their voices beyond borders.

While criminalizing young people and their protests may slow their momentum, it doesn’t solve anything. It only undermines the social contract, fuels political disenchantment and reinforces polarization. What’s more, it risks pushing demands for reform to outright refusal of the status quo.

Recent protests remind us of an obvious fact: young people are not “the future,” but political entities in the present. Governments need to hear not just the noise of protest, but the clarity of the demands: justice, dignity, representation and a future.

Amani Braa, Assistant lecturer, Université de Montréal

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

Read next:

• Online Shopping Scam Reports – How To Spot Patterns In Frauds

• How to Let AI Think With You, Not Instead of You

• From our sponsors: How Automated Internal Links and Image Alt Texts Improve Modern SEO Performance

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

How Automated Internal Links and Image Alt Texts Improve Modern SEO Performance

Search engine optimization has evolved far beyond keywords and backlinks. Today, technical efficiency, content structure, and accessibility play a critical role in how websites are crawled, understood, and ranked. Two often underestimated but highly impactful elements are internal linking and image alt texts. When these processes are automated, they can significantly improve SEO performance while saving time and reducing human error.

This article explores how automated internal links and automated image alt text solutions support scalable SEO strategies, enhance user experience, and help websites meet modern search engine expectations.

The Role of Internal Linking in SEO

Internal linking refers to the practice of linking pages within the same website. These links guide users, distribute authority across pages, and help search engines understand content relationships.

Effective internal linking helps search engines:

• Discover new and updated pages faster
• Understand topic hierarchy and content relevance
• Pass link equity throughout the site
• Improve crawl efficiency

For users, internal linking improves navigation, increases time on site, and helps them find relevant information more easily.

However, maintaining a strong internal linking structure becomes increasingly difficult as websites grow. Large blogs, ecommerce platforms, and content-heavy websites often struggle to keep links updated, relevant, and evenly distributed.

Why Manual Internal Linking No Longer Scales

Traditionally, internal linking has been handled manually by editors or SEO specialists. While this approach works for small websites, it becomes inefficient at scale.

Common challenges include:

• Outdated links pointing to removed or redirected pages
• Orphan pages with no internal links
• Over-optimization of anchor texts
• Inconsistent linking logic across content
• High time investment for content teams

As websites publish hundreds or thousands of pages, manual internal linking becomes error-prone and difficult to maintain. This is where automated internal links provide a practical solution.

What Are Automated Internal Links?

Automated internal links use rule-based or AI-assisted systems to create contextual links between pages automatically. These systems analyze page content, keywords, and structure to determine where links should be added.

Automated internal linking tools typically:

• Identify relevant anchor texts naturally within content
• Link to related pages based on topic relevance
• Avoid duplicate or excessive linking
• Continuously update links as new content is published

By automating this process, websites can maintain a strong internal linking structure without manual intervention.

SEO Benefits of Automated Internal Linking

Automated internal links deliver several measurable SEO advantages.

First, they improve crawlability. Search engines rely on internal links to discover pages. Automated systems ensure that new content is linked quickly and consistently.

Second, they distribute authority more evenly. Instead of a few pages receiving most internal links, automation helps spread link equity across the site.

Third, they enhance topical relevance. Automated internal linking reinforces semantic connections between related pages, which helps search engines understand content depth and expertise.

Finally, they reduce maintenance overhead. SEO teams can focus on strategy and content quality rather than repetitive linking tasks.

Internal Linking and Content Clusters

Modern SEO increasingly relies on content clusters and topic authority. Internal linking plays a central role in this strategy.

In a cluster model:

• A pillar page covers a broad topic
• Supporting pages explore subtopics in detail
• Internal links connect the cluster logically

Automated internal links support this structure by dynamically linking related content as clusters grow. This ensures consistency even as new articles are added over time.

The Importance of Image Alt Texts in SEO

Images contribute significantly to user engagement, but search engines cannot interpret images visually. Instead, they rely on alt texts to understand image content.

Alt texts serve multiple purposes:

• Improve image search visibility
• Enhance accessibility for screen readers
• Provide context when images fail to load
• Reinforce page relevance through descriptive text

From an SEO perspective, well-written alt texts help search engines associate images with page topics and keywords.

Challenges of Writing Alt Texts Manually

Writing alt texts manually is often overlooked or done inconsistently. Common issues include:

• Missing alt attributes
• Overly generic descriptions
• Keyword stuffing
• Inaccurate or irrelevant descriptions
• Inconsistent formatting across pages

On large websites with hundreds or thousands of images, manually writing alt texts becomes unrealistic.

This is where automated image alt text generation becomes essential.

What Is Automated Image Alt Text Generation?

Automated image alt text solutions analyze images and surrounding content to generate descriptive, context-aware alt texts automatically.

These systems typically:

• Detect image subject matter
• Incorporate surrounding text context
• Generate concise, readable descriptions
• Avoid keyword overuse
• Apply consistent formatting across the site

By automating alt texts, websites ensure accessibility and SEO compliance without manual effort.

SEO and Accessibility Benefits of Automated Alt Texts

Automated image alt text improves SEO in several ways.

First, it enhances image search performance. Proper alt texts increase the likelihood of images appearing in image search results.

Second, it improves page relevance. Alt texts support the overall topical signals of a page.

Third, it strengthens accessibility. Search engines increasingly value user experience, including accessibility standards.

Finally, it reduces technical SEO gaps. Missing alt attributes are a common audit issue that automation can eliminate entirely.

How Automated Internal Links and Alt Texts Work Together

While automated internal links and automated image alt texts address different aspects of SEO, they complement each other.

Together, they:

• Improve crawl efficiency
• Strengthen content structure
• Enhance semantic understanding
• Reduce manual SEO tasks
• Support scalable content growth

Internal linking focuses on relationships between pages, while alt texts focus on understanding visual content. Combined, they create a more complete and search-friendly website.

Automation and Long-Term SEO Strategy

Automation is not about replacing SEO expertise. It is about removing repetitive tasks so teams can focus on strategy, content quality, and user experience.

By automating internal linking and alt text generation:

• SEO becomes more consistent
• Human errors are reduced
• New content is optimized instantly
• Technical debt is minimized over time

This approach is especially valuable for growing websites, content platforms, and businesses managing large digital ecosystems.

Common Myths About SEO Automation

Some website owners worry that automation leads to low-quality SEO. In reality, the opposite is often true when automation is implemented correctly.

Well-designed automation:

• Follows best practices
• Avoids over-optimization
• Adapts as content grows
• Maintains consistency at scale

Automation does not remove control; it enhances it by applying rules consistently across the site.

Measuring the Impact of Automated SEO Elements

The impact of automated internal links and alt texts can be measured through:

• Improved crawl statistics
• Better index coverage
• Increased organic traffic
• Higher engagement metrics
• Fewer technical SEO issues

Over time, these improvements compound, making automation a long-term investment rather than a short-term fix.

Final Thoughts

As SEO becomes more complex, efficiency and consistency are no longer optional. Automated internal links and automated image alt text generation address two critical areas that are difficult to manage manually at scale.

Internal linking strengthens site structure and topical authority, while alt texts improve accessibility and image visibility. When automated, these elements work continuously in the background, ensuring that websites remain optimized as they grow.

For modern SEO strategies focused on sustainability, automation is not a shortcut — it is a necessity.

Image by jcomp on Freepik / https://tinyurl.com/ysa9zhym

Note: This is paid content and does not necessarily reflect the views of this publication. AI assistance may have been used during creation of this post.

by Sponsored Content via Digital Information World

Online Shopping Scam Reports – How To Spot Patterns In Frauds

Researchers at privacy company Incogni have conducted a study of online shopping scam reports reaching back nearly five years. Just after the holiday season, their study aimed to uncover patterns and trends in scams reportedly affecting consumers. By examining a large, up-to-date dataset, they were able to provide consumers with correlations and warning signs that could help keep them—and their wallets—protected during the seasonal retail rush.

The study involved processing and analyzing 121,000 consumer reports alleging retail (online shopping) scams. These reports were submitted to the Better Business Bureau (BBB) between January 1st, 2020, and September 30th, 2025—spanning nearly five years.

The online shopping scam reports contained descriptions of alleged fraudulent activities undertaken by online retailers, from the perspective of individual consumers who voluntarily submitted their reports. The researchers were able to characterize the contents of each report by drawing out various combinations of nine “scam attributes”: issues to which consumers attributed the feeling that they’ve been scammed or otherwise defrauded.

Incogni’s researchers managed to extract or deduce the product categories at the center of many (approximately 79,000) of the scam reports under investigation. Combined with the aforementioned scam-attribute analysis, this is what allowed them to generate key results from their dataset. Here are some of the highlights:

• Online shopping scam report volumes have risen sharply in recent years, nearly doubling in 2023 and already averaging a record 2,550 reports per month in 2025.
• Unresponsive customer support was the most frequently reported issue, appearing in 46% of all online shopping scam reports.
• The non-delivery of products was mentioned in 35% of scam reports across the entire dataset.
• The impersonation of legitimate brands or websites was reported in 17% of cases.
• Fake tracking information appeared in 10% of reports and increased by 16% during the holiday season, on average.
• The clothing and shoes, home and kitchen, and patio, lawn and garden product categories were the most likely to include mentions of fake tracking information, which appeared in over 15% of associated reports.
• Health and household and beauty and personal care products were more likely to be linked with unauthorized and/or recurring charges.
• Reports pertaining to items from the tools and home improvement and sports and outdoor product categories frequently mentioned unusually low prices.
• During the holiday season, delayed shipping was reported 11% more often and non-delivery 9% more often than during the rest of the year.

When it comes to the relationships between scam attributes and product categories, the researchers found results that may not have revealed themselves otherwise. For example, BBB online shopping scam reports pertaining to purchases of products from the clothing and shoes, home and kitchen, and patio, lawn and garden product categories frequently mentioned fake tracking details. Meanwhile, scam reports pertaining to purchases of items from the health and household and beauty and personal care product categories were more often correlated with mentions of unauthorized or recurring charges. Finally, reports detailing consumers’ (negative) experiences with the purchase of tools and home improvement supplies and sporting and outdoor goods often referred to the presence of unusually (even suspiciously) low prices.

Focusing on the holiday period (four consecutive holiday periods are covered by the dataset), Incogni’s researchers were able to track the rates at which each of the nine scam attributes are mentioned in BBB online shopping scam reports in the weeks leading up to Christmas and New Year, as well as the weeks immediately following them.

Comparing these results to the baseline of year-round statistics, we see that several attributes were reported more frequently over the holiday period:

• Fake traffic information reports increased by 16%
• Delayed shipping reports increased by 11%
• Purchase non-delivery reports increased by 9%
• Unresponsive customer service reports increased by 5%
• Legitimate website impersonation reports increased by 4%.

Noting that the scam reports rarely mentioned just one scam attribute, Incogni’s researchers interrogated the dataset to examine the frequency of occurrence of each of the possible scam-attribute pairs:

It’s at this point of the analysis that Incogni could indicate some key insights that consumers could apply directly to their online shopping endeavors.

For example, it may be a strong indicator of a potential scam when two or more of the following appear together during a single transaction:

• non-delivery,
• fake tracking,
• unresponsive support,
• and delayed shipping.

Or, more pragmatically: if a consumer notices that a retailer is impersonating a legitimate website or brand while leveraging aggressive pricing, then they can be forearmed in knowing that this is correlated with ultimate non-delivery.

Head of Incogni, Darius Belejevas, had this to say regarding the situation:

It’s just a fact of our times that the holidays begin (and increasingly end) with periods of intense retail activity. Retailers know and capitalize on this, as do all manner of scammers. The general advice would be: the more concrete and detailed information shoppers have, the better they’re able to proactively manage their own risk.

Continuing:

This research gives online shoppers fine-grained insight into what it looked like when things went wrong for other shoppers. They can see the patterns that only data can reveal, knowing exactly what to look out for when shopping for particular types of items.

Indeed, Incogni’s latest findings are useful not only for consumers, but also the regulators charged with keeping the market functioning reliably, predictably and fairly.

Incogni’s full analysis (including public dataset) can be found here.

Read next: 

• How to Let AI Think With You, Not Instead of You

• Task scams are up 485% in 2025 and job seekers are losing millions

by Guest Contributor via Digital Information World

How to Let AI Think With You, Not Instead of You

By Craig B. Barkacs MBA, JD, Power and Influence

This post is Part 1 of a series.

In my previous post, I discussed the conundrum we face regarding artificial intelligence (AI) today: On one hand, we’re told to use it or get left behind; on the other, we’re warned about the "cognitive diminishment" that can result from that very use. I suggested the solution wasn’t an uncritical embrace, nor an outright rejection. Yes, we need to learn to use AI. But the dilemma of cognitive decay remains.

While claims that AI can boost creativity are common, there is little instruction on specific ways to use it that minimize the risk. I promised to provide those specific ways, and when it comes to promises, I have built my career and reputation (as a trial lawyer, a professor, and a consultant) on being reliable. So, let’s dive into those now without delay.

Starting With an Inconvenient Truth

Research suggests that the more consciously designed and structured your use of AI is, and the more it promotes active learning and a growth mindset, the more it can help without hurting. However, unless you’re a student enrolled in a course providing that structure, you are disadvantaged. You have to provide the structure yourself.

This presents a challenge because structure requires effort. And part of the appeal of AI tools, if we’re being honest, is that when used uncritically, they remove the need for effort. Or, as one student put it in a New York Magazine article about students cheating their way through college: “You just don’t really have to think that much.”

The inconvenient truth is this: You can keep your thinking skills and creativity sharp while using AI, but it will take effort. Not too much, but some. As nice as it would be to maximize benefits without any effort, it is simply impossible. In fact, this is an underlying truth of my entire Power & Influence blog: All of the advice contained here requires action. I provide the information; the decision whether to act on it is yours. Even if I could somehow force or trick you into making the effort, I wouldn't. That would undermine the very human agency we want to conserve in the age of AI.

The Habits of Cognitive Offloading

Something else research tells us is that the easier a new desired action is made—not free of effort, just reasonably easy—the more likely people are to turn it into a habit. Since you are going to use AI anyway, my tips involve continuing to use the tools you already use with just a few small adjustments.

Unfortunately, "cognitive offloading" has already become widespread and habitual enough that even small adjustments may feel like too much hassle. You may have seen the hilarious comedic sketch that went viral about people who have offloaded all thinking to ChatGPT. If you’re reading this article, though, you’re probably not there yet. Let’s keep it that way.

A Helpful Warm-up Exercise: The Meta-Audit (if You Do It Right)

Let’s start with a meta-level exercise that can be quite eye-opening. Open whichever large language model (LLM) tool you use most often. Scroll through your threads and pick one that represents your typical usage style. Importantly, choose a thread containing creative or academic work—not practical questions about whether you’re going to die because you ate yogurt one day past the expiration date.

Next, copy and paste this prompt into that thread:

“Based on my usage style in this thread, can you offer honest, balanced feedback about my level of risk for cognitive diminishment through AI use? Treat this as a reflective exercise, not a diagnosis. Be very honest: no flattery or empty reassurance, please. At the same time, frame the feedback constructively. In your assessment, consider: (1) how much I’m offloading any creative or cognitive work I could be doing on my own, and (2) if I’m at risk of being in a bubble or echo chamber. Give me a rough 'score' in the range of 1–10 (10 being highest risk) and explain your reasoning.”

Depending on the answer, ask follow-up questions for clarity. Keep in mind that this exercise works best if you invite the AI to gently challenge you rather than reassure you. Don’t “game” the prompt to get the answer you want. Doing that only sabotages your cognitive integrity (i.e., the very thing we are trying to protect). LLMs are optimized to be "socially cooperative." If you nudge them to reassure you, they likely will.

Take the feedback with a grain of salt. LLMs cannot yet reliably “remember” your interactions across all threads. Even so, the feedback can be eye-opening. The goal is to have a risk pointed out that you hadn't considered. Prompting in a way that gets helpful feedback versus empty reassurance is, in itself, a skill and an art.

Using the “One Thought Rule”

Once you have a sense of your usage style, here is a simple habit to immediately reduce the scale of cognitive offloading. I call it the “One Thought Rule.”

When you ask a research-oriented question, instead of just asking the question by itself, add a thought of your own that begins answering it. It doesn’t matter how simple, incomplete, or even flat-out wrong your thought might be. What matters is that you’re doing some thinking versus no thinking.

This conserves the natural conjecturing that happens with traditional, slower-paced research, as opposed to the “get everything answered instantly” impulse that drives AI prompting.

Example of the One Thought Rule:

• Question:Why does cognitive diminishment happen when you overly rely on AI?
• Your One Thought:Is it because the brain is like a muscle, and muscles atrophy if you don’t use them?

The first sentence is the question; the second is your contribution. As much as possible, do this with follow-up questions as well. If your prompt isn’t a question but a counterpoint made in good faith to something the AI said, that works, too—it is a form of critical thinking. The idea is to simply have you do as much of your own thinking as possible.

Mastery: Conserving Human Agency

Look, I get it. Sometimes you just want to ask your questions. For purely practical questions (like the expired yogurt), offloading is fine. But for research that defines your professional or academic life, consider the effort a reasonable price to pay for conserving your skills.

True power and influence in the 21st century will not belong to those who can prompt an AI to think for them; it will belong to those who use AI to think better. By inserting yourself into the dialogue, you ensure that you remain the pilot, not just a passenger on an automated flight.

Be one of the people who don’t lose their edge.

The Challenge: This week, run the meta-audit on your three most recent work-related threads. Be prepared for a "score" that might sting. Then, commit to the One Thought Rule for 48 hours. Notice how much more engaged you feel when you stop asking for answers and start testing your own hypotheses.

Protect your mind when using artificial intelligence with these practices.

Originally published by PsychologyToday on December 30, 2025. Republished with permission.

Read next:

• How doubting your doubts may increase commitment to goals

• Three climate New Year’s resolutions that will fail – and four that can actually stick

• Can AI Chatbots Produce Gossip-Like Content With Potential Reputational Impact?

• Nobel Laureate Discusses Artificial Intelligence's Role in Critical Thinking Education

by External Contributor via Digital Information World