Researchers Warn Fun Chatbot Designs May Mask Data Disclosure Risks

Mobile apps and chatbots often use interactive tools to hold attention, but these same features may affect how carefully people treat their personal data. A team from Penn State and the University of South Dakota wanted to see whether interactivity distracts users from privacy risks or helps them become more alert.

The Fitness App Experiment

To explore this, 216 participants in the U.S. were asked to go through a simulated sign-up process for a fitness app. The app requested sensitive details such as body weight, health conditions, and exercise habits. Some versions of the app responded in a basic question-and-answer style, while others created a more connected conversation by referring back to earlier answers. A second variation added images — in some cases a static picture, in others a zoomable one — to test the effects of visual interactivity.

What Happened When Users Engaged

The study found that interactivity made the app seem playful, and this sense of fun reduced the amount of concern people expressed about their privacy. When the conversation felt more connected, users reported lower privacy worries than those who experienced a simple exchange. Statistical analysis showed that the flow of messages increased the feeling that the system was paying attention, which made the app feel more enjoyable, and this enjoyment in turn pushed privacy concerns to the background.

Visual Tools and the “Sweet Spot” Effect

Adding pictures had a different effect. A simple pop-up image boosted playfulness ratings from around 3.9 to 4.45 on a seven-point scale. But when zoom features were added, ratings slipped closer to 4.1. This suggests a sweet spot: one layer of interactivity can enhance enjoyment, but piling on too many options makes the experience less engaging.

Combined Features and Unexpected Results

When both conversational and visual tools were used together, the outcomes were mixed. Strong conversational design on its own gave people a strong sense of connection. Adding visual features reduced that effect, but when the conversation was simple, the images helped strengthen it. This shows that different forms of interactivity can either cancel each other out or complement one another depending on how they are combined.

Why Intrusiveness Was Low

Across all versions, participants rated the app as not particularly intrusive. On average, intrusiveness stayed below 3 on a seven-point scale, even though users were sharing sensitive health details. The researchers noted that positive feelings of playfulness often overshadowed discomfort, highlighting how easily enjoyment can shift attention away from privacy.

Implications for AI Chatbots and App Design

These findings challenge the idea that conversational AI makes people more thoughtful. In practice, the back-and-forth exchanges that feel natural may actually reduce vigilance. This is especially important in generative AI, where users often become absorbed in long conversations and may not pause to consider what information they reveal.

Building Responsible Interactions

For designers, the results point to the need for balance. Playfulness can help users stay engaged, but it should not be allowed to hide the risks of disclosure. Small design choices, like inserting a pause through a rating request, could remind users to reconsider what they are sharing. As apps and AI systems continue to compete for attention, developers will need to combine enjoyment with safeguards that keep users aware of their privacy.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools. Image: DIW-Aigen.

Read next: ChatGPT Study Shows How Everyday Use Now Outweighs Work
by Asim BN via Digital Information World

ChatGPT Study Shows How Everyday Use Now Outweighs Work

By the summer of 2025, around 700 million people were logging into ChatGPT every week, and around 188.58 million visiting the platform daily. Together they sent close to 18 billion messages in that time. That works out at about 26 messages a week for each active user, or just under four a day. A joint study by Harvard and OpenAI, released through the National Bureau of Economic Research, analysed more than a million conversations to see how habits have changed over the last year.

Daily life drives most conversations

ChatGPT is used more at home than in offices. In June 2024, just over half of messages were unrelated to work. A year later, the share had risen to nearly three quarters. Much of that traffic was tutoring, cooking ideas, or planning tasks. The authors describe the trend as “home production rather than formal labour,” pointing out that work use has grown but personal requests are rising faster.

What people ask it to do

Almost eight out of ten chats fall into three areas. Practical guidance, like how-to help, makes up close to a third. Information seeking has risen from 14 to 24 percent in a year. Writing now accounts for about a quarter, often editing or reworking drafts. Programming remains small at just over four percent. Messages about relationships or reflection are under two percent. Image generation took off in 2025, lifting multimedia to seven percent of use.

Asking questions leads the way

Nearly half of all messages are questions, people wanting answers or explanations. Four in ten are task-based, such as writing or coding. The rest are expressive conversations. Asking has grown during the year, while doing has slipped. The study notes that asking “is the category most often associated with high quality.”

Work habits in detail

In the workplace, writing is still the main task. Four out of ten work conversations are editing or polishing text, with most based on drafts supplied by the user. Practical guidance is another quarter, and technical help sits just above one in ten. When mapped against U.S. labour categories, more than 80 percent of work use was linked to documenting information, problem solving, or decision support.

Who is using it

The gender gap seen at launch has narrowed. In January 2024, 37 percent of users had feminine names. By July 2025, it was 52 percent. Younger people dominate in numbers, with nearly half of all messages coming from under-26s, but older groups are steadily growing. Adoption has been strongest in lower-income countries, where growth has been four times faster than in wealthier regions.

Education and jobs

Education plays a part in how people use the tool. Graduates send more questions, while those with less formal schooling send more task requests. Occupations show similar divides. Business and management users send mostly writing requests, while those in computing focus on technical help. Across the board, though, documenting and problem solving appear again and again.

Satisfaction over time

Feedback has become more positive. In late 2024, good interactions outnumbered bad ones three to one. By mid-2025, the gap had widened to four to one. Self-expression gets the best ratings, technical help the lowest. Asking tasks are judged most helpful overall.

Why it matters

The study shows a system becoming part of ordinary routines. Most use is now outside formal jobs, often invisible to economic statistics, but visible in how people organise their time. Whether it is tutoring, writing support, or factual questions, ChatGPT has moved from novelty to everyday habit.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools. I

Read next: AI Chatbots Produced Phishing Emails That Fooled Seniors In A Reuters Test

by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

AI Chatbots Produced Phishing Emails That Fooled Seniors In A Reuters Test

A Reuters investigation, carried out with a Harvard researcher, tested how easily major AI chatbots could be used to create phishing content. The team asked six different systems to generate sample emails, timing advice, and other elements that could be used in a scam. Nine of the most convincing messages were later sent to 108 senior volunteers in California as part of a controlled study.

Messages created with little effort

Some chatbots refused to produce scam material, but others delivered full emails with only small adjustments to the request. One tool drafted a charity appeal aimed at older adults and wrote it in a way that made the offer sound urgent. Another gave details on what times of day people were more likely to open emails. The six systems tested were Grok, ChatGPT, Meta AI, Claude, DeepSeek, and Gemini. Results varied, but each produced at least some text that could be used in a phishing attempt.

Real tests with older participants

Nine AI-generated emails were chosen for a live test. The group of seniors, who had agreed to take part in the study, received the messages under conditions approved by a review board. No money or personal data was collected. About 11 percent of the participants clicked on links included in the emails. Five of the nine test emails drew clicks, with examples coming from Grok, Meta AI, and Claude.

• Also read: Study Warns That Friendly Chatbots May Enable Dangerous Behavior

Why AI lowers barriers for criminals

Security experts warn that AI makes it easier to run scams at scale. A person running a fraud campaign has to draft and test many different versions of a message. With AI, dozens of new attempts can be generated quickly and cheaply. That efficiency means large fraud operations can change wording or tactics at little cost until one version works. Accounts from people who worked in past scam centers suggest that AI is already being used to translate, draft, and adjust messages in real time.

Mixed safety controls

The chatbots have rules designed to block misuse, but those rules aren’t consistent. Some tools refused to help when the intent was clear, while others gave full responses when the request was framed as research or fiction. The same chatbot could respond differently in separate sessions. Companies said they update models and safety layers when problems are found, but the results in practice showed gaps that criminals could exploit.

Seniors remain vulnerable targets

Fraud complaints among Americans over 60 have increased sharply in recent years. Losses linked to phishing scams are counted in billions of dollars. In the Reuters–Harvard test, seniors who clicked on links were taken to a page that explained the experiment and offered a survey. Several said they acted because the messages seemed urgent or familiar.

The broader issue

The test didn’t aim to show which chatbot was most dangerous, but it confirmed that AI-written messages can persuade people to click. Combined with cheap automation, that capability could make scams easier to run at a larger scale. Banks, researchers, and regulators say the risks will need to be managed with better safeguards in AI tools, stronger fraud detection, and more awareness campaigns.

Image: Christopher Paterson / Unsplash

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools.

Read next:

• Smartphones to Outnumber All Other Personal Devices by 2030

• Is Learning to Code Still Worthwhile in an AI-Driven Industry?
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Smartphones to Outnumber All Other Personal Devices by 2030

Over the past five years, smartphones have quietly outpaced every other consumer technology product. Between 2020 and 2024, buyers worldwide picked up more than 9.3 billion handsets, and projections suggest another 8.5 billion will reach the market by 2030. That scale leaves laptops, tablets, and desktop PCs far behind.

Phones vs. Other Devices

By the end of the decade, consumers are expected to purchase close to 951 million tablets, around 441 million laptops, and just 65 million desktop computers. Put together, these totals still amount to barely a fraction of the smartphone market. On current trends, people will buy six times more smartphones than all three categories combined.

Spending Power

The money involved is just as striking. Global buyers have been spending between $420 billion and $470 billion a year on new handsets since 2020. Forecasts suggest that total will pass half a trillion dollars in 2026, before rising steadily to about $560 billion by 2029.

Shipment Growth

Behind the financial scale lies a slow but steady climb in annual shipments. Starting at 1.40 billion units in 2020, the market rose to 1.51 billion in 2021, 1.52 billion in 2022, and 1.59 billion in 2023. In 2024, sales reached 1.63 billion devices. Projections for the next few years point to incremental gains: 1.64 billion in 2025, 1.65 billion in 2026, and 1.67 billion in 2027. By 2030, shipments are expected to settle near 1.75 billion units a year.

Year	Shipments (billion units)
2020	1.40
2021	1.51
2022	1.52
2023	1.59
2024	1.63
2025	1.64
2026	1.65
2027	1.67
2028	1.69
2029	1.71
2030	1.75

Read next:

• AI Search Traffic Rises Fast, But Organic Still Converts

• How Many Days of Work It Takes to Buy an iPhone 17 Pro Worldwide: 2025 iPhone Affordability Index
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

AI Search Traffic Rises Fast, But Organic Still Converts

Artificial intelligence search platforms are growing quickly in 2025, yet their contribution to website traffic and sales remains minimal. Data from BrightEdge covering January through August shows AI referrals climbing at double-digit rates each month, but still representing less than one percent of total visits. Organic search continues to drive the largest share of traffic and delivers far stronger conversion results.

Sharp Swings in AI Platform Growth

Performance differs widely across providers. Anthropic’s Claude grew by 58 percent in July and 21 percent in August. xAI’s Grok spiked by 1,279 percent in July, then slowed to 17 percent the following month. ChatGPT has consistently led on referral volume in the past three months. DeepSeek, an early entrant from China, fell sharply through midsummer after early momentum.

How Users Approach Each Channel

The distinction lies in intent. People turning to AI tools are usually gathering background knowledge or exploring options. They remain in the research phase. Organic search users arrive with more specific goals, often linked to products or services, which puts them closer to a transaction. Many begin their journey with AI discovery but switch to organic or direct channels when making final decisions.

Dependence on Traditional Indexes

Even as AI platforms grow, their foundations remain tied to established search infrastructure. ChatGPT pulls results from Bing. Google’s AI tools rely on its own index. Claude draws from Brave. All deploy their own crawlers as well, which means standard SEO practices continue to influence visibility across both types of platforms.

External Sources Shaping AI Outputs

BrightEdge’s review shows AI systems drawing on a range of references beyond website content. News outlets, specialist media, forums, and social networks feed into the responses. For marketers, that underlines the value of building presence outside their own domains, from industry publications to community discussions, so information about their brand appears across the sources AI relies on.

Outlook for Marketers

AI search is creating new touchpoints at speed, but organic search remains the primary channel for digital growth. Businesses that maintain SEO fundamentals while preparing for AI-driven discovery are best positioned to capture audiences at both the research stage and the point of conversion.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools. Image: DIW-Aigen.

Read next:

• One Phone, Two Realities: iPhone 17 Accessible Luxury for Some, Impossible Dream for Others

• Adaptability Over Knowledge: Google AI Chief Stresses Continuous Learning for Fast-Changing AI Era

by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

SEO in 2026: Content, AI, and Authority Drive the Year Ahead

A global study of 371 professionals from 52 countries, conducted by SearchEngineJournal shows how search teams are reshaping their work for the coming year. The report points to three clear themes: the weight placed on original content, the rise of AI tools, and the growing focus on authority signals.

Original Content Still Matters Most

Sixty-six percent of respondents said original content delivered the strongest impact in 2025. Content updates ranked next at 42.6 percent, with technical improvements close at 42.3 percent. More than four in ten professionals said creating original content takes the most time of any task.

To manage that workload, most teams plan to mix human writing with AI support. This hybrid model is now the majority approach, reflecting a desire to save time without losing quality.

Three Models of Practice

The survey shows three paths forming. About 22 percent use automation heavily, aiming for scale. Forty-nine percent focus on authority building, investing in expertise and credibility. A larger share, 58 percent, operate in the middle, using AI to help but keeping humans in control of final content.

Tools Shift Toward Integration

Analytics and reporting tools are still most common, used by 56 percent. Cross-functional platforms follow at 51.2 percent. AI writing assistants now sit at 42.3 percent, the same as technical SEO tools, confirming their place in standard workflows.

Concerns remain. Seventy-seven percent of professionals believe AI-generated answers in search could reduce website clicks. That figure makes it the top worry about the future of search visibility.

Authority Building as Defense

Nearly half of the respondents plan to increase investment in authority signals, often called E-E-A-T (experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness). Thirty-three percent also want to improve topical authority and site structure. These choices reflect an attempt to build assets AI cannot easily replace.

Main Challenges

Algorithm changes continue to disrupt work, with 59 percent calling them their biggest challenge. Workflow problems follow at 32 percent, and technical barriers affect 28 percent. In response, 42 percent of companies are training teams on AI use, while 36 percent are focusing on updated best practices. Collaboration across departments shows the lowest impact today at 9 percent, though 37 percent expect to increase it in 2026.

Budgets Remain Steady

Despite shifts in technology and search engines, investment in SEO remains stable. Only 43 percent cut spending last year. Looking ahead, 65 percent expect no reductions.

The confidence comes from results. Sixty percent of professionals reported growth in organic traffic. Another 34 percent saw more leads and conversions. Teams also said they are tracking outcomes that matter to the business. Organic traffic led at 74 percent, while qualified leads and sales followed at 60 percent.

Planning for 2026

The survey shows an industry adjusting rather than retreating. Professionals are leaning on AI for efficiency, reinforcing authority to protect long-term visibility, and continuing to secure budgets by tying outcomes to measurable business value. Whether through automation, human expertise, or hybrid workflows, SEO teams are preparing for another year of disruption while staying focused on proven results.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools.

Read next: Adaptability Over Knowledge: Google AI Chief Stresses Continuous Learning for Fast-Changing AI Era
by Web Desk via Digital Information World

One Phone, Two Realities: iPhone 17 Accessible Luxury for Some, Impossible Dream for Others

Apple’s latest iPhone 17 has sparked global interest, not just for its features but for the gap in affordability between countries. While the device looks the same in every market, the number of working hours needed to purchase one shows a divide that reflects wages, taxes, and economic conditions.

Global Overview

In wealthier nations, the iPhone 17 Pro with 256 GB of storage can be bought with just a few days of income. Workers in Luxembourg, for example, need only around three working days, while those in the United States typically need just under four. By contrast, in India, the same phone requires the equivalent of 160 workdays, showing a difference of more than fifty times between the top and bottom of the ranking.

Across the 33 countries studied, the global average stands at about 26 workdays for the flagship model. This broad figure masks enormous contrasts: in some parts of Europe and North America, the phone amounts to a week’s work or less, while in South Asia or parts of Southeast Asia, several months of wages are needed.

Regional Contrasts

In North America, affordability is relatively high. The base model iPhone 17 costs about $799 in the United States before sales tax, and the Pro version starts at $1,099. With an average monthly wage near $6,000 and typical weekly hours of 37.6, American workers face about 30 hours of labor for the Pro model, or roughly four workdays.

Europe presents a mixed picture. In Switzerland, despite a price of about $1,381 for the Pro model, high average wages near $8,000 per month keep the work requirement low, at about 26 hours. In Germany, a similar phone costs around $1,110, requiring close to 32 workdays when adjusted for average income levels. Portugal and Hungary show a different reality: higher retail prices paired with lower wages push affordability far down the list, demanding more than a month of work for a single phone.

Brazil and Turkey highlight the impact of import duties, taxes, and currency fluctuations. In both countries, the base iPhone 17 surpasses $1,400, and the Pro version nears or exceeds $1,800. Average hourly wages of only about $4 mean that a Brazilian worker must spend between 409 and 461 hours to buy the base model and as much as 709 hours for the Pro Max version. In Turkey, the situation is even more extreme, with affordability further undermined by luxury taxes and a weak currency.

Asia’s Divide

In Asia, the affordability of the iPhone 17 varies sharply. Japan and South Korea are known for relatively low retail prices, yet wage levels shift the actual burden. A South Korean worker needs around 45 workdays to afford the Pro version, more than in several Western European countries. India and Vietnam reveal the most striking gaps. Although the nominal price has fallen in India due to local assembly and lower levies, the average hourly wage of just over a dollar leaves the device far out of reach. Workers there need about 160 days for the flagship model, while in Vietnam, with slightly higher wages, it still takes over 120 days.

Middle East and Africa

The Middle East shows a mixed affordability pattern. In Saudi Arabia, where average monthly wages approach $2,800 and working weeks average 40 hours, the iPhone 17 Pro costs roughly $1,400. This translates into about 100 hours of work, or nearly 13 working days. The United Arab Emirates, with somewhat higher wages and lower duties, requires about 11 days for the same device.

Africa reveals even harsher realities. In South Africa, the phone is listed at over $1,500. With average monthly earnings under $1,000 and weekly working hours above 40, it takes close to 60 days of labor for a worker to afford the flagship model. This makes the device more of a luxury good than a mainstream product in that region.

Latin America

Brazil and Mexico illustrate how the iPhone can represent very different economic weight within the same continent. As noted earlier, Brazil’s combination of high import costs and modest wages leads to the longest working hours in the Americas, up to 709 hours for a Pro Max. Mexico, where the iPhone Pro sells for about $1,350, requires around 52 days of average wages. Although more affordable than Brazil, it remains far beyond the U.S. benchmark.

Global Spread in Numbers

Looking at the complete dataset of 33 countries, the differences are stark.

• Top of the ranking: Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the United States, where workers need fewer than four days to afford the Pro model.
• Bottom of the ranking: India, Philippines, and Vietnam, requiring between 101 and 160 days.
• Global average: 26 days of work.

Workers in India must put in 51 times more hours than those in Luxembourg to afford the same device. Even within Europe, where Apple’s prices tend to be similar in nominal terms, wage differences make affordability diverge. Scandinavia and Western Europe sit close to the top, while Eastern and Southern Europe fall far lower.

Why Affordability Varies

Taxes, duties, logistics, and exchange rates all affect the final price of an iPhone. In Turkey, luxury taxes drive up the retail tag. In Brazil, import tariffs and transport security costs do the same. By contrast, local assembly in India has brought down nominal prices, although low wages keep affordability out of reach. In wealthier nations, the relationship between high incomes and relatively stable prices makes the device accessible in just a few days of work.

Final Insights

The affordability map of the iPhone 17 Pro shows how global income gaps translate directly into consumer access. For Apple, this means a divided customer base: in rich countries, the new iPhone remains a common upgrade, while in lower-income nations it is largely reserved for the wealthy.

The contrast also highlights broader inequality. A worker in Europe or North America can purchase the phone with little strain, whereas a counterpart in South Asia or parts of Latin America must dedicate months of wages. In the end, the iPhone 17 is not just a piece of technology but a mirror of global economic disparity, revealing who can participate in the premium smartphone market and who cannot.

Data H/T: Tenscope.

Country (Region)	Working days needed to buy the new iPhone	Average monthly wage (USD)	Weekly working hours (average)	Avg. monthly working hours	Average hourly wage (USD)	iPhone 17 Pro (256 GB) price (local currency)	iPhone 17 Pro (256 GB) price (USD)	Hours to buy the new iPhone
Luxembourg (Europe)	3	$9,228	35.6	154	$59.86	1,285	$1,506	25
Switzerland (Europe)	3	$8,000	35.2	152	$52.49	1,099	$1,381	26
United States (North America)	4	$5,985	37.6	163	$36.76	1,099	$1,099	30
Belgium (Europe)	4	$7,325	34.5	149	$49.03	1329	$1,559	32
Denmark (Europe)	4	$6,979	33.1	143	$48.69	9,999	$1,572	32
Netherlands (Europe)	4	$6,315	31.2	135	$46.74	1,329	$1,559	33
Norway (Europe)	4	$6,652	33.2	144	$46.27	15,990	$1,619	35
Australia (Oceania)	5	$5,091	32.3	140	$36.40	1999	$1,327	36
Austria (Europe)	5	$5,771	34	147	$39.20	1,299	$1,524	39
Finland (Europe)	5	$5,784	34.3	149	$38.94	1,359	$1,595	41
Ireland (Europe)	5	$5,640	34.8	151	$37.43	1,339	$1,569	42
Germany (Europe)	5	$5,170	33.6	145	$35.54	1,299	$1,522	43
Canada (North America)	5	$4,072	35.2	152	$26.71	1,599	$1,154	43
France (Europe)	6	$5,043	35.8	155	$32.54	1,329	$1,555	48
Sweden (Europe)	6	$4,739	35.1	152	$31.18	14,995	$1,609	52
United Kingdom (Europe)	7	$4,119	35.1	152	$27.10	1,099	$1,477	55
New Zealand (Oceania)	7	$3,564	33	143	$24.94	2,349	$1,400	56
Singapore (South East Asia)	8	$4,050	42.6	184	$21.96	1,749	$1,363	62
Italy (Europe)	8	$3,908	36.1	156	$25.00	1,339	$1,564	63
United Arab Emirates (Middle East)	8	$4,083	48.7	211	$19.36	4,699	$1,279	66
Spain (Europe)	9	$3,567	36.6	158	$22.51	1,319	$1,547	69
Czechia (Europe)	12	$2,788	37.8	164	$17.03	32,990	$1,587	93
Poland (Europe)	17	$1,973	39.1	169	$11.65	5,799	$1,599	137
Portugal (Europe)	24	$1,374	37.7	163	$8.42	1,349	$1,582	188
Hungary (Europe)	27	$1,224	37.4	162	$7.56	549,990	$1,647	218
Chile (Latin America)	32	$1,015	39.4	171	$5.95	1,429,990	$1,501	252
Malaysia (South East Asia)	45	$697	44.7	194	$3.60	5,499	$1,303	362
Thailand (South East Asia)	61	$525	42.5	184	$2.85	43,900	$1,381	485
Brazil (Latin America)	77	$585	38.9	168	$3.47	11,499	$2,133	615
Türkiye (Middle East)	89	$682	42.8	185	$3.68	107,999	$2,611	709
Vietnam (South East Asia)	99	$303	41.8	181	$1.67	34,999,000	$1,325	791
Philippines (South East Asia)	101	$308	40	173	$1.78	79,990	$1,437	808
India (South Asia)	160	$236	45.7	198	$1.19	134,900	$1,525	1,280

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools.

Read next: Adaptability Over Knowledge: Google AI Chief Stresses Continuous Learning for Fast-Changing AI Era

by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World