A Global Account Mapping Event Reveals What WhatsApp Metadata Can Expose

Researchers at the University of Vienna uncovered a weakness in WhatsApp’s contact discovery process that let them confirm more than 3.5 billion active accounts across 245 countries. The team relied on the same basic mechanism that helps users find contacts through phone numbers. WhatsApp checks each number against its registry. The researchers found that the system allowed an unusually high volume of lookups from a single source, which opened the door to automated enumeration at a massive scale.

Their testing reached a pace of more than one hundred million number checks per hour. The data made available through these lookups matched what any person could access when already aware of a phone number. That limited set included numbers, public keys, timestamps and public profile details. Even so, the researchers linked these pieces to patterns that revealed operating systems, account ages and companion device counts. They also spotted rare cases where cryptographic keys appeared to be reused across devices or numbers. Those findings pointed toward unofficial clients or improper implementations.

The dataset captured a broader snapshot of global behavior. Millions of active accounts appeared in regions where WhatsApp is officially blocked, including China, Iran and Myanmar. Platform distribution leaned heavily toward Android with a global share near eighty percent. The remaining group used iOS. Privacy habits varied by country. Some regions showed heavier use of public profile photos or public status text, while others leaned toward a more locked down setup.

The study highlighted long term risks tied to older exposures. Nearly half of the numbers seen in the major Facebook scraping incident from 2018 remained active on WhatsApp in 2021. That persistence raised concerns about continued targeting through scams and other unwanted contact.

No message content was ever accessed, and the researchers deleted the collected data before publishing their work. End to end encryption protects chats, but the team stressed that metadata can still reveal patterns that matter. They noted that even limited signals can be combined to build a picture of a user’s activity window or device environment.

Meta received the disclosure and added stronger rate limits along with tighter controls around profile visibility. The company said it had already been developing stronger anti scraping systems and used this study to validate those defenses. Meta also said it found no signs that malicious actors used the technique at similar scale.

This event landed during a year in which Meta paid more than four million dollars to security researchers for valid bug reports across WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram and its other platforms. The company processed about thirteen thousand submissions and accepted around eight hundred. Meta highlighted two issues in particular. One stemmed from the Vienna enumeration work. The other came from an internal analyst using a specialized proxy tool to examine WhatsApp’s network protocol. That review uncovered an incomplete validation problem in older client versions that could have triggered content retrieval from arbitrary URLs on a recipient’s device. Meta patched it before any harmful use surfaced.

The company also released a patch to address a separate high severity vulnerability, tracked as CVE 2025 59489, that affected Quest devices through Unity based applications. That flaw came from a different researcher and involved operating system level behavior rather than messaging.

Meta has started distributing the WhatsApp Research Proxy to select long term contributors who focus on protocol level issues. The goal is to support deeper analysis and lower the barrier for academic teams that want to study the platform. Meta said it plans to expand access later.

The enumeration study follows earlier work from the same research group. They previously examined how delivery receipts can be triggered in ways that reveal activity patterns, device switches and session counts. Their combined findings show how small fragments of metadata can be stitched together into meaningful profiles.

The researchers argue that constant scrutiny remains necessary as messaging systems change over time. Meta echoed the reminder that its platforms draw attention from attackers and researchers alike. The size of WhatsApp’s user base gives every flaw wider reach, which makes independent testing and clear disclosure important parts of the security ecosystem.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools and reviewed by human editor. Image: DIW-Aigen

Read next: 

• Meta Wins Key Ruling as Judge Rejects FTC Push to Break Up Instagram and WhatsApp
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Meta Wins Key Ruling as Judge Rejects FTC Push to Break Up Instagram and WhatsApp

Meta secured a major legal victory after a federal judge ruled that the company did not violate antitrust laws when it bought Instagram and WhatsApp. The decision ends the current attempt by the Federal Trade Commission to force a breakup of the two platforms. The agency is still reviewing its options, so the broader matter may not be fully settled, but this ruling closes the latest chapter of a case that began in 2020.

The FTC had alleged that Meta created a monopoly in personal social networking by acquiring fast growing rivals. Regulators claimed the company used large acquisitions to limit competition and wanted Instagram and WhatsApp separated to restore market balance. This push came years after Meta completed both purchases.

The first version of the FTC’s lawsuit was dismissed in 2021 because the agency did not provide enough evidence of monopoly power. The agency returned with an amended case a year later. It described Snapchat and MeWe as Meta’s closest competitors for sharing updates with friends and family. Meta challenged that framing and said the FTC left out major platforms that shape user behavior across social media.

Judge James Boasberg agreed that the FTC’s market definition was too narrow. Evidence showed that users often moved between apps like YouTube and TikTok when Meta’s services experienced outages. The judge noted that TikTok had become such a strong competitor that Meta spent four billion dollars on Reels last year. This level of investment, driven by competitive pressure, did not match the picture of a market under one company’s control.

Meta argued that acquiring companies with strong products is a legitimate way to build new features. The court accepted that reasoning and found that the FTC had not demonstrated that these acquisitions harmed competition in the current environment. The judge pointed out that the landscape had changed since the early years of Facebook’s rise and that platforms now compete in more varied ways.

The ruling prevents the FTC from forcing divestment for now. The agency said it was disappointed and would examine its next steps. The case forms part of a much broader antitrust push against several major technology firms. Other actions are still underway, including those involving Alphabet’s Google and Apple.

For Meta, the decision removes an immediate threat to the structure of its platform group. It also brings some clarity to a question that has surrounded the company for years. The outcome does not resolve every regulatory challenge, but it does reshape how the courts view competition across today’s social apps.

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

Read next:

• Shift Brower Report Finds AI Adoption Is Increasing Amid Concerning Skepticism

• Global Web Access Faces Its Hardest Year Yet as Rights Recede
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Shift Brower Report Finds AI Adoption Is Increasing Amid Concerning Skepticism

A new study released by next-generation Internet browser Shift unveils a growing divide over how Internet users approach artificial intelligence capabilities online, with deep divisions between AI capabilities and user trust in them.

Among the top concerns shared over the integration of AI into modern browsers are privacy issues and environmental impact. However these concerns have not noticeably tempered the demand for AI features.

Topline Context

According to the report, AI usage is both high and growing. Of those surveyed, 82% report engaging with AI at least occasionally, with tech workers and younger users indexing higher on their usage.

However AI is not yet overtaking traditional search as a source of answers to users' questions. According to the study, 68% still rely on traditional search engines like Google, compared to only 21% citing AI tools like ChatGPT (about 10% say they use both equally).

The outlook for that to change is only slightly leaning AI’s way. Less than a third (32%) say they expect to use AI tools more in the future, compared to 44% who say they’ll stick with traditional search.

Instead, AI use is centered around three main areas:

• Research Assistance: 49%
• Task Automation: 37%
• Drafting Content: 34%

These results shift a bit between demographics, with 50% of Gen Z saying they primarily want AI to provide personalized recommendations, compared to 33% of the total audience surveyed.

AI Barriers: Privacy and Planet

For all of AI’s potential and expressed interest among browser users, the single largest concern reported is privacy, with nearly half (45%) of respondents citing privacy concerns as their main reason for hesitancy. Driving this is a lack of trust in where their data and information goes.

Another 35% say they don’t trust how AI-generated content might be used, while a nearly equal number (34%) expressed doubts about the accuracy of AI results. The result is a trust gap that requires more than a slick user interface to address.

Instead, for AI to grow further, providers must make transparency a default feature, with explicit details provided about how data is handled, models are trained, and privacy protected.

The environmental cost of AI is another major concern, with 57% of respondents saying they are either “very” or “somewhat” concerned about the energy and water consumption of AI infrastructure. Only 24% say they’re not concerned, and 19% were not aware of the energy usage issue.

Interestingly, those figures increase among those using AI the most. IT and Tech workers (the most active AI users at 62% daily) say they are either very concerned (35%) or somewhat concerned (44%) about the environmental impact of their AI use.

These results don’t exist in a digital vacuum. AI isn’t the only energy-consuming technology that has users concerned. Streaming video, cloud-stored photos, and internet traffic may all feel innocuous enough, but have an impactful carbon cost. As a result, environmental responsibility has evolved from a platitude to an essential strategy for businesses. Those who accept this reality today will be better positioned to thrive tomorrow.

The AI Paradox

Taken together, a certain paradox emerges. Those who use AI the most are the ones with the greatest concerns about its impact. Those seeking the most personalized experiences also cite the greatest concerns over privacy. The tension between confidence and control, and between usage and impact, stands to shape the next phase of AI’s growth.

Adoption alone can no longer be used to measure the future success of AI tools and technologies. The path forward depends on trust, transparency, and tangible value. While users are always eager to embrace tools to make everyday tasks easier and more convenient, a sizable portion of the population will hold back as privacy, data use, and environmental concerns become more pronounced.

This suggests the next phase of AI adoption must hinge on how well technology providers address these worries and how successful they will be in turning curiosity into confidence. For technology to earn its place in our daily lives, it must prove it can serve both human productivity and human values equally.

The State of Browsing Report, based on a survey of 1,000 adults in the U.S., was conducted this past September. View it for free here.

Read next: Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei Says AI Is Moving Faster Than Its Oversight

by Web Desk via Digital Information World

Study Maps the Conditions That Trigger AI Citation Hallucinations

A new look at GPT-4o shows how easily citation trouble grows when the topic drifts into areas with thin research trails. The warning signs appear clearly in a controlled test where the model produced six mental health literature reviews and filled them with 176 citations. A closer inspection showed that 35 of those references did not exist and many of the remaining ones carried mistakes hidden in the details. The numbers set the tone for a pattern that shifts sharply depending on how familiar the topic is in the research world.

Researchers at Deakin University built the experiment around three disorders. Depression sat at the top of the visibility ladder, followed by binge eating disorder, then body dysmorphic disorder at the bottom. This mix created a natural gradient in research volume. Depression carries decades of trials and thousands of papers. The other two conditions occupy smaller footprints and offer far fewer studies on digital interventions. That uneven landscape became the test bed for the model’s strengths and misses.

Each disorder received two review requests. One prompt asked for a broad overview that covered causes, impacts and treatments. The other request drilled into digital interventions. The team wanted to see how topic familiarity and prompt depth shaped the reliability of the citations. They pulled every reference into a manual check across major academic databases. This process placed each citation into one of three buckets. Either it existed in the real world, it existed but contained errors, or it was fabricated outright.

The headline numbers make the problem easy to see. Out of 176 total citations, 35 were fabricated. Among the 141 real ones, 64 carried errors. Only 77 came through fully accurate. That means around half of all citations were unusable in scholarly work. DOI errors were the most common type of error. Wrong links, wrong codes, or completely invalid strings made many citations look correct at first glance but fail when checked against the actual paper.

The pattern became sharper when the team compared the three disorders. Depression showed the lowest fabrication count with only four fake citations out of 68. Binge eating disorder jumped to seventeen fabricated citations out of sixty. Body dysmorphic disorder followed closely with fourteen fabricated citations out of forty eight. Accuracy among the real citations also depended on the topic. Depression reached sixty four percent accuracy. Binge eating disorder reached sixty. Body dysmorphic disorder fell to twenty nine. The drop shows how the model struggles once the evidence base gets thin enough.

Prompt specificity also shaped outcomes, though not in a simple way. Binge eating disorder showed the clearest effect. Its specialized review saw fabrication rise to almost half of the citations. The general overview stayed closer to one out of six. Other disorders showed different patterns. Depression’s general overview delivered better accuracy than its specialized review. Body dysmorphic disorder flipped that pattern and showed better accuracy when the prompt narrowed. These differences suggest the model reacts to the structure of the request and the strength of the underlying literature in different ways.

The study’s authors point out how much the model leans on patterns in public information. When the topic sits on a wide and stable base of research, the model has clearer pathways to follow. When the topic shifts to areas with fewer papers or narrower lines of inquiry, the model relies more on guesswork. The results from body dysmorphic disorder show how quickly accuracy collapses when the system tries to piece together references from scattered or limited material.

These findings matter because more researchers have started using large language models to speed up routine tasks. Survey data shows strong adoption among mental health scientists. Many researchers believe these systems help with drafting, coding, and early idea formation. Efficiency gains look promising until the citations fall apart under verification. That creates problems for anyone who trusts the output without checking every reference. A fabricated citation can mislead a research team, distort the evidence trail, and send other scientists searching for sources that were never written.

The study pushes institutions and journals toward simple safeguards. Every AI generated citation needs to be verified. Every claim tied to those citations needs human confirmation. Editors can screen suspicious references by checking whether they match known publications. When a citation sits outside any recognized record, it becomes a clear red flag. With these checks in place, journals can block fabricated references before they reach print.

The authors also point to the need for stronger guidance at universities and research centers. Training programs can help researchers learn how to identify hallucinations and validate AI generated content before placing it in a manuscript. As AI tools become part of normal workflows, these checks will keep the academic record from drifting into mistaken territory.

The results show that reliability is not static. It depends on the openness of the research terrain. Well studied disorders give the model a broader map. Narrower or less familiar topics cut away those supports. For now, the safest way to use these systems in research is to treat their output as a starting point that always needs careful checking. The experiment makes that reality clear.

Read next: Meta Adds New Content Protection Tools to Help Creators Spot Copycats
by Asim BN via Digital Information World

Digital Growth Continues but Leaves the Poorest Far Behind

Global connectivity keeps rising, yet the numbers behind this year’s ITU assessment show how sharply the gains tilt toward countries that already sit ahead. The world now counts 6 billion people online in 2025, equal to 74 percent of the population, up from 5.8 billion a year earlier. Growth inched upward to 3.3 percent, but even with that push, 2.2 billion people remain offline. Most of them live in places where income levels and infrastructure shape access long before a device ever turns on.

Year	Number of Internet users, billions	Percentage of Internet Users
2005	1	15.6
2005	1	15.6
2006	1.1	17.2
2006	1.1	17.2
2007	1.4	20.2
2007	1.4	20.2
2008	1.6	22.8
2008	1.6	22.8
2009	1.7	25.3
2009	1.7	25.3
2010	2	28.4
2010	2	28.4
2011	2.2	30.9
2011	2.2	30.9
2012	2.4	33.3
2012	2.4	33.3
2013	2.6	35.3
2013	2.6	35.3
2014	2.8	37.4
2014	2.8	37.4
2015	3	39.9
2015	3	39.9
2016	3.3	43.6
2016	3.3	43.6
2017	3.5	46.3
2017	3.5	46.3
2018	3.8	49.4
2018	3.8	49.4
2019	4.2	53.9
2019	4.2	53.9
2020	4.7	60.1
2020	4.7	60.1
2021	5.1	63.8
2021	5.1	63.8
2022	5.4	67
2022	5.4	67
2023	5.6	69.2
2023	5.6	69.2
2024	5.8	71.2
2024	5.8	71.2
2025	6	73.6
2025	6	73.6

High-income economies sit near universal use with 94 percent of their populations online. Low-income economies reach only 23 percent, a gap that barely moves even when year-on-year growth hits 7.4 percent in some of these countries. Regional figures paint the same picture. Europe and the CIS stand between 88 and 93 percent. The Americas reaches 88 percent. Asia Pacific settles at 77 percent and the Arab States at 70 percent. Africa trails with 36 percent. Least developed countries reach 34 percent, and landlocked developing countries reach 38 percent. Both remain far from a point where steady annual improvements could close the distance.

Gender divides follow the same path. Worldwide, 77 percent of men use the Internet against 71 percent of women. That gap produces a global parity score of 0.92, the same level seen in 2019, which shows little overall movement. Europe, the CIS, and the Americas reach parity, yet low-income economies sit at a much wider split with only 18 percent of women online compared with 29 percent of men. LDCs show a similar pattern with 28 percent of women online against 39 percent of men. Africa shows improvement over several years, but still reaches only a parity score of 0.78.

Age also matters. Youth aged 15 to 24 reach 82 percent global usage, while the rest of the population reaches 72 percent. That ten-point difference narrows slowly, but gaps in low-income regions stand out. Young people there are nearly twice as likely as older groups to be online. By contrast, youth in high-income countries sit only five percent above the rest of their population. Europe, the CIS, and the Americas already show youth usage above 95 percent.

Where people live has a large effect on whether they connect. Urban areas reach 85 percent global Internet use. Rural areas stop at 58 percent. Africa’s rural-urban ratio hits 2.6, one of the widest gaps. Low-income countries show only 14 percent of rural populations online, compared with 39 percent in urban zones. Even in regions with relatively high overall access, rural connections do not move at the same pace. Europe stands closest to balance at a ratio of 1.1.

Network quality redraws these divides. This year’s data show 5G coverage reaching 55 percent of the world’s population, yet only 4 percent in low-income economies. High-income economies stand at 84 percent. Europe reaches 74 percent, Asia Pacific reaches 70 percent, and the Americas reaches 60 percent. Coverage in the Arab States reaches 13 percent and Africa reaches 12 percent, while the CIS sits at 8 percent. Older networks fill the gap. 4G covers 93 percent of the global population, but only 56 percent in low-income countries. In these markets, 3G still acts as the main entry point for mobile broadband.

Around 312 million people live in locations without any mobile broadband signal. Nearly half of that unserved group is in Africa. Rural pockets tell an even starker story. In SIDS, 36 percent of rural residents lack 3G or higher. In the Americas, 21 percent of rural residents remain outside 3G coverage. In LDCs, the figure is 19 percent, and in LLDCs it is 17 percent.

Subscription numbers stretch the divide from another angle. The world now holds 9.2 billion mobile-cellular subscriptions, equal to 112 per 100 inhabitants. High-income economies reach 142 per 100 inhabitants, while low-income economies reach 70. Mobile broadband sits at 99 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, which places the global total almost one-to-one with population, yet distribution is uneven. The Americas stands at 132 mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. Africa stands at 56. In 2025, 36 percent of all mobile broadband subscriptions are 5G. Regions with strong 5G coverage hold more than 40 percent of their subscriptions on the newer standard, while Africa and the CIS sit near 2 percent or lower.

Traffic intensity highlights the gap in how people use their connections. The global average mobile broadband traffic reaches 15.3 GB per subscription per month. High-income economies sit at 17.9 GB. Low-income economies average 2.2 GB. That means a user in a high-income country generates a month of low-income traffic in just four days. The CIS region leads mobile data use with 22 GB per subscription. Africa records 5.2 GB. For fixed broadband, global traffic averages 369 GB per subscription. High-income economies climb to 505 GB, while low-income, lower-middle, and upper-middle groups land between 248 and 310 GB.

Affordability remains one of the strongest barriers. Median prices for a data-only 5 GB mobile broadband basket fall from 1.5 to 1.4 percent of GNI per capita worldwide. Fixed broadband stays at 2.5 percent. But the averages hide how steep the cost feels for lower-income users. People in low-income economies spend 22 times more of their income on mobile broadband than users in high-income economies. Fixed broadband costs more than one quarter of average income in low-income countries. Of 205 economies with data for mobile broadband, only 130 meet the affordability target of 2 percent of GNI per capita. For fixed broadband, only 88 out of 195 meet that mark.

ICT skills show another layer of imbalance. Communication skills remain strong in most countries, with at least three-quarters of Internet users showing basic capability. Skills in safety, problem solving, and content creation vary widely. Among the eight countries with complete data, overall basic skill levels for Internet users range between 16 and 74 percent, a spread that speaks to uneven readiness even where connectivity exists.

Mobile phone ownership runs higher than Internet use, reaching 82 percent worldwide among people aged 10 and older. High-income economies reach universal levels above 95 percent. Upper-middle economies reach 90 percent. Low-income economies reach 53 percent. In Africa, phone ownership reaches 66 percent, yet only 36 percent go online. The gender gap in phone ownership mirrors the gender gap in Internet use. Globally, 87 percent of men own a phone compared with 78 percent of women. Women account for 67 percent of those without phones.

All these figures move in one direction. The world is drawing more people online each year, but the benefits rise fastest where income, infrastructure, and skills already align. The poorest regions gain users but lose ground on quality, speed, and affordability. Growth continues, yet the numbers show how far the gap still runs.

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

Read next: Most Marketers Call Social Media Essential, Nearly Two Thirds Tie It to Outcomes, and AI Support Reaches 45 Percent
by Asim BN via Digital Information World

Most Marketers Call Social Media Essential, Nearly Two Thirds Tie It to Outcomes, and AI Support Reaches 45 Percent

Social teams enter 2026 with a workload that keeps rising faster than their resources. The latest data from Photoshelter shows how much they lean on social platforms to drive marketing outcomes. Ninety-five percent of marketers in the survey call social important, and nearly two thirds say it is the primary channel that delivers results for their organization. That reliance shows up in posting habits, budget decisions, and the technology they pull in to stay ahead.

The pressure to keep content flowing is intense. More than 70 percent of organizations post every day, and one in three push out multiple posts across their platforms daily. Only a small share post on a monthly rhythm. The behavior holds steady across company size and industry, which signals that teams of all shapes feel the same need to stay visible in crowded feeds.

A gap still sits between the importance of social and how teams judge their own work. Most give themselves a B. Nearly a third feel their content strategy needs to mature. Another 19 percent point to staffing limits and bandwidth shortfalls that slow them down. They want tighter planning, more hands, and stronger execution, but they also try to keep pace with platforms that change their rules often.

The shift in goals over the last year stands out. In 2024, 76 percent of marketers saw brand awareness as the top goal for social. That dropped to 22 percent in 2025. Teams now focus on engagement, reach, leads, and sales. The numbers paint a story of a channel that moved deeper into the funnel and picked up more responsibility for measurable outcomes.

Budgets follow these expectations. Marketers plan to increase spending on Instagram at 46 percent, YouTube at 39 percent, and LinkedIn at 36 percent over the next 12 to 18 months. Confidence in X continues to slide, with nearly one in five cutting spend. TikTok picks up interest with 20 percent planning to grow their investment, while new platforms like Threads and Snapchat remain smaller bets.

Challenges remain heavy across the board. Bandwidth sits at the top with 46 percent saying they feel stretched. Engagement issues follow at 37 percent as teams struggle to understand what their audiences want at any given moment. Another 36 percent say their content needs more variation and stronger ties to organizational goals. Algorithm changes affect 26 percent of respondents, yet the impact rises among heavy posters. For teams already pressed for time, each shift in ranking logic makes results unpredictable.

Even with those challenges, certain practices consistently deliver better outcomes. Authentic content carries weight. Seventy-eight percent call user generated content important to their strategy. Human stories, real voices, and visuals created by actual users draw stronger reactions than branded content. Community engagement helps as well. Twenty-seven percent say it plays a major role in their success. Teams that build conversations see steadier growth. Consistency is another factor. Forty-one percent say it strengthens their performance and helps them hold attention in busy feeds.

AI enters the picture as one of the main tools teams use to keep up with the workload. Forty-five percent of marketers report using AI to support their social efforts. Among organizations that post multiple times a day, usage rises to 53 percent. The contrast between users and non users is sharp. Those who avoid AI report higher expenses at 32 percent, bandwidth constraints at 32 percent, and performance challenges at 29 percent. Social media roles feel these issues more strongly than other functions.

The study shows how AI is used in day-to-day work. Teams rely on it to accelerate content tagging, organize visual libraries, trim routine tasks, and keep production moving when deadlines stack up. Findings from related research add more context. Nearly four in ten marketing and creative professionals use generative AI for both written and visual content. Many report time savings that reach about 24 hours a month for content generation alone.

User generated content plays a growing role in the mix. Forty-one percent of organizations say they invest in UGC programs. The appeal is clear. UGC performs better across key metrics and produces higher credibility. The challenge lies in collection. Sixty-four percent still gather it manually through social platforms or email. Only a small group uses tools that streamline the process.

Distribution shapes reach as well. Half of organizations push content to stakeholders who can share it through their own channels. Employees and fans make up 33 percent of that group. Sponsors and partners account for 25 percent, and athletes or influencers contribute 15 percent. This approach widens the audience far beyond brand accounts and amplifies content that might otherwise remain unseen.

All of these numbers show how social media stands at the center of modern marketing. Teams devote time, budget, and energy to it because the channel brings measurable results. The workload will keep climbing as expectations rise. To stay competitive, marketers turn to authentic content, stronger communities, and tools that help them scale without losing their voice.

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

Read next:

• Americans Point to the Tasks They Want AI to Handle Most

• Weak Password Culture Starts With the Websites and New Research Maps the Scale
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Americans Point to the Tasks They Want AI to Handle Most

AI tools have slipped into daily habits in quiet but steady ways. Many people no longer wander through long search pages and instead lean on systems that gather and summarize information for them. This shift sets the stage for a simple question: where do Americans actually want AI to step in?

Fresh numbers from Statista Consumer Insights outline the priorities. The strongest interest centers on personal assistance, and about 32 percent say they want help with organizing life details. Phones already carry enough data from calendars, messages, and apps to make that kind of support feel natural, so expectations stay grounded.

Daily chores follow closely. Twenty eight percent want AI to take routine tasks off their plate. Work related help attracts 27 percent, which shows how many people see room for support with planning, drafting, or sorting information. Teaching or tutoring lands at 26 percent, and that interest reflects how common quick on demand learning has become.

Health and wellness guidance captures 25 percent. The same share look for help refining communication or language skills. Content creation sits at 23 percent, since plenty of people now weave AI into videos, posts, or documents without treating it as a full creative engine. At the same time, 22 percent prefer to avoid AI entirely, keeping a clear boundary between their tools and their routines.

Across all categories, the requests line up with abilities that current systems already provide. The real work for many users comes from choosing the right tool and shaping a workflow that fits their habits.

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

Read next: Weak Password Culture Starts With the Websites and New Research Maps the Scale
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World