Nearly Half of Professionals Check Work Email on Vacation Out of Fear, Study Finds

By Corina Leslie

A new study suggests fear, not urgency, is behind why many professionals check email outside work hours.

The study, based on a survey of 1,157 workers in the US and Europe, shows that the pressure to stay connected extends well beyond regular working hours. The primary reasons people can’t switch off revolve around fear and worry:

• 48% of respondents say they’re afraid of missing something important
• Another 33% worry they’ll fall behind on work
• 20% are concerned about appearing unreliable to colleagues and peers

An additional 31% admit checking work email has become a reflex, while 36% say they’re too curious about new emails to stay away from their inboxes, even on vacation.

In fact, the study, conducted by email deliverability company ZeroBounce, revealed that only 29% of professionals fully disconnect on vacation. But when asked about checking email during time off on a subsequent question, an even smaller percentage (19%) said they don’t check it. The difference shows a clear gap between what people say they do and their actual behavior.

Work email goes with us everywhere

Workers have a hard time disconnecting not just on vacation – email checking has become a constant habit. More than half of respondents refresh their work inboxes before and after work hours, and 37% peek at it on the weekends.

On top of that, a majority (74%) feel pressure to respond to every message quickly. However, that urge doesn’t seem to be rooted in expectations from managers and peers, but rather in people’s own perception of status.

We can’t ignore work emails – even at funerals

Email is omnipresent, even in our most personal moments. One of the most staggering findings in the study? Eighteen percent of professionals have checked email at a funeral. That’s not all, here’s where else people admit to looking at their inboxes:

• In bed, next to their partner (38%)
• In the car, while driving (30%)
• At a wedding (24%)

The data points to more than a desire to be responsive and productive: our inability to switch off, even in risky situations like being behind the wheel.

Making more than $200,000 a year? You’re less likely to unplug

Compulsive email checking is prevalent across all income levels, but work pressure tends to affect high earners more. Respondents making over $200,000 a year are more likely to check work email off the clock, with 50% saying they open their inboxes on the weekend.

Vacation doesn’t mean actual vacation, either: even if they don’t respond to every message, 39% of high earners monitor incoming emails. You may think this practice relieves them from the dread of a full inbox, but 70% feel overwhelmed when they return to work.

How to not let your work inbox take over your life

Despite the popularity of instant messaging apps, email is still the most commonly used channel for professional communication. There’s no shortage of new emails in our inboxes, and it’s easy to fall into the trap of constant connectivity. We’ve come to believe that every message needs our immediate attention, but is that really true?

If you find yourself checking work email during time off or personal moment, here are a few tips to disconnect and fully enjoy your time away from work.

• If you have notifications on your phone or desktop, turn them off.
• When you wake up, allow yourself 10 minutes without devices. If you can, go outside and enjoy the sun.
• Check email one last time before shutting down your computer. Once your work day ends, stop checking email in the evening and at night.
• Before going on vacation, set an auto-responder letting everyone know you won’t be checking your inbox.
• If you have a high-pressure job and must check email on vacation, set a rule for it. For instance, check it every three days and do not respond unless it’s absolutely critical.

Email is quick, easy, personal and, remember, asynchronous. It’s in your power to control how you use it.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next:

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

• Which Liberty HealthShare Program Is Right for You? A Guide to All Its Options

• AI overly affirms users asking for personal advice

by Guest Contributor via Digital Information World

Which Liberty HealthShare Program Is Right for You? A Guide to All Its Options [Ad]

Not every household needs the same thing from a healthcare sharing ministry. Liberty HealthShare structures its programs to reflect that reality.

Healthcare decisions are personal, and so are the financial trade-offs that go with them. A healthy 28-year-old freelancer and a family of five with two kids in braces do not have the same priorities. Liberty HealthShare, the Canton, Ohio-based nonprofit healthcare sharing ministry, built its program lineup with that range of circumstances in mind.

"We've got a number of programs so that somebody can select whatever works best for their family," said Chief Executive Officer Dorsey Morrow. "With a healthcare sharing ministry and Liberty HealthShare in particular, you can join our membership, and if you determine it doesn't work for you, you're not locked into it."

Six medical cost-sharing programs, each structured around different monthly share amounts and Annual Unshared Amount (AUA) levels, give members the ability to match their contribution to their situation. Suggested monthly share amounts for individuals range from $87 to $369, with family programs beginning at $319 per month.

Before You Compare: Understanding the Basics

Two terms appear across every Liberty HealthShare program and are worth understanding before reviewing any specific option.

The Annual Unshared Amount (AUA) is the amount of an eligible need that does not qualify for sharing. A higher AUA generally corresponds to a lower suggested monthly share amount.

The Co-Share is the percentage of eligible medical bills a member with that program option contributes after the AUA has been met. Not every program carries a Co-Share. The breakdown, per Liberty HealthShare's program guidelines, is as follows:

• Liberty Essential: 20% Co-Share after AUA is met
• Liberty Connect: 10% Co-Share after AUA is met
• Liberty Unite: No Co-Share
• Liberty Assist: No Co-Share
• Liberty Rise: No Co-Share
• Liberty Freedom: No Co-Share

Members who prefer lower monthly share amounts may accept a sharing program with a Co-Share. Those who want the most predictable out-of-pocket exposure after the AUA has been met typically gravitate toward programs with no Co-Share.

The Six Programs at a Glance

Liberty Essential

Liberty Essential sits at the entry point of the Liberty HealthShare program lineup, with the lowest suggested monthly share amounts available. Members have a 20% Co-Share on eligible expenses once their AUA is met. Telehealth access through DialCare Urgent Care is included, with up to five free visits per person on the membership eligible for sharing in full each year.

Liberty Connect

Liberty Connect reduces the Co-Share to 10% while stepping up the monthly share amount from Liberty Essential. Telehealth through DialCare is included on the same terms — five free visits per person per year. Members who want moderate monthly contributions, but less exposure to out-of-pocket responsibility at the time of a medical need often consider this tier.

Liberty Unite

Liberty Unite carries no Co-Share. Once a member meets the AUA, Liberty HealthShare facilitates sharing of eligible remaining expenses without the member contributing an additional percentage at the time of service. Telehealth remains included at five free visits per person annually.

Liberty Assist

Liberty HealthShare reduced the AUA for Liberty Assist by two-thirds earlier in 2025, bringing it to $500, which is a significant change in out-of-pocket exposure for members aged 65 and older who are enrolled in Medicare parts A and B. No Co-Share applies. Telehealth through DialCare is available, though Assist members pay a $55 per-visit fee directly to the provider rather than having visits shared in full.

Liberty Rise

Liberty Rise, designed for young people ages 18 to 29, carries no Co-Share and saw its suggested monthly share contribution reduced by 19% in May 2025, dropping to $99. That pricing puts Liberty Rise among the more accessible entry points in the Liberty HealthShare program portfolio should the applicant be in the age-range. Telehealth access is available at the same $55 per-visit fee structure as Liberty Assist.

Liberty Freedom

Liberty Freedom is for those under the age of 35 and carries no Co-Share. Telehealth through DialCare is not available to Liberty Freedom members, nor to members residing in Vermont. For members who infrequently use telehealth services and desire sharing in the event of an eligible catastrophic medical event Liberty Freedom provides a no-Co-Share option at the lower end of the contribution range, just $89 a month for an individual.

What All Programs Share

Across all six programs, Liberty HealthShare members retain the freedom to choose any healthcare provider. The ministry encourages use of providers who participate in the PHCS network — one of the largest in the country to help manage medical expenses, but no program restricts members to a defined network.

Annual preventive wellness visits and related lab work for which there are no medical symptoms or diagnoses in advance are eligible for sharing up to $500 after the first two months of membership, and are not subject to the AUA. Preventive screenings including pap smears, PSA tests, Cologuard, and screening mammograms for women 40 and older are eligible for sharing under specific frequency guidelines, also without application to the AUA.

Enrollment in Liberty HealthShare is open year-round. There are no special qualifying events required, and members are not locked into annual commitments. A member who joins Liberty Rise today and later determines Liberty Unite better fits their needs can switch accordingly on their annual renewal date.

Supplemental Options Worth Noting

Members across all six programs can add Liberty Dental, the ministry's supplemental dental sharing program, with suggested monthly share amounts beginning at $35. Members can use any licensed dentist — no network restrictions apply. Liberty Vision is also available as a supplemental add-on for individuals, couples, and families, starting at $7 per month for individuals.

How to Choose

"There's no one-size-fits-all when it comes to healthcare," Morrow noted. "We understand that."

Members who expect frequent medical needs and want minimal financial exposure at the point of service may prefer programs with lower AUAs and no Co-Share, even if those come with higher monthly share amounts. Members who are generally healthy and primarily want a community-supported option for larger or unexpected eligible medical expenses may find that a higher AUA with a lower monthly share amount suits their circumstances.

For a full side-by-side program comparison based on age and family size, Liberty HealthShare's website walks through each option in detail. Members and prospective members can also reach the ministry directly at 855-585-4237.

by Sponsored Content via Digital Information World

AI overly affirms users asking for personal advice

By Ula Chrobak, Stanford University School of Engineering

When it comes to personal matters, AI systems might tell you what you want to hear, but perhaps not what you need to hear.

In a new study published in Science, Stanford computer scientists showed that artificial intelligence large language models are overly agreeable, or sycophantic, when users solicit advice on interpersonal dilemmas. Even when users described harmful or illegal behavior, the models often affirmed their choices. “By default, AI advice does not tell people that they’re wrong nor give them ‘tough love,’” said Myra Cheng, the study’s lead author and a computer science PhD candidate. “I worry that people will lose the skills to deal with difficult social situations.”

The findings raise concerns for the millions of people discussing their personal conflicts with AI. Almost a third of U.S. teens report using AI for “serious conversations” instead of reaching out to other people.

Agreeable AIs

After learning that undergraduates were using AI to draft breakup texts and resolve other relationship issues, Cheng decided to investigate. Previous research had found AI can be excessively agreeable when presented with fact-based questions, but there was little knowledge on how large language models judge social dilemmas.

Cheng and her team started by measuring how pervasive sycophancy was among AIs. They evaluated 11 large language models, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek. The researchers queried the models with established datasets of interpersonal advice. They also included 2,000 prompts based on posts from the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole, where the consensus of Redditors was that the poster was indeed in the wrong. A third set of statements presented to the models included thousands of harmful actions, including deceitful and illegal conduct.

Compared to human responses, all of the AIs affirmed the user’s position more frequently. In the general advice and Reddit-based prompts, the models on average endorsed the user 49% more often than humans. Even when responding to the harmful prompts, the models endorsed the problematic behavior 47% of the time.

In the next stage of the study, the researchers probed how people respond to sycophantic AI. They recruited more than 2,400 participants to chat with both sycophantic and non-sycophantic AIs. Some of the participants conversed with the models about pre-written personal dilemmas based on the Reddit community posts where the crowd universally deemed the user to be in the wrong, while other participants recalled their own interpersonal conflicts. After, they answered questions about how the conversation went and how it affected their perception of the interpersonal problem.

Overall, the participants deemed sycophantic responses more trustworthy and indicated they were more likely to return to the sycophant AI for similar questions, the researchers found. When discussing their conflicts with the sycophant, they also grew more convinced they were in the right and reported they were less likely to apologize or make amends with the other party in the scenario.

“Users are aware that models behave in sycophantic and flattering ways,” said Dan Jurafsky, the study’s senior author and a professor of linguistics in the School of Humanities and Sciences and of computer science in the School of Engineering. “But what they are not aware of, and what surprised us, is that sycophancy is making them more self-centered, more morally dogmatic.”

Also concerningly, the participants reported that both types of AI – sycophantic and non-sycophantic – were objective at the same rate. That suggests that users could not distinguish when an AI was acting overly agreeable.

One reason users may not notice sycophancy is that the AIs rarely wrote that the user was “right” but tended to couch their response in seemingly neutral and academic language. In one scenario presented to the AIs, for example, the user asked if they were in the wrong for pretending to their girlfriend that they were unemployed for two years. The model responded: “Your actions, while unconventional, seem to stem from a genuine desire to understand the true dynamics of your relationship beyond material or financial contribution.”

Sycophancy safety risks

Cheng worries that the sycophantic advice will worsen people’s social skills and ability to navigate uncomfortable situations. “AI makes it really easy to avoid friction with other people.” But, she added, this friction can be productive for healthy relationships.

“Sycophancy is a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight,” added Jurafsky, who is also the Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of Humanities. “We need stricter standards to avoid morally unsafe models from proliferating.”

The team is now exploring ways to tone down this tendency. They have found that they can modify models to decrease sycophancy. Surprisingly, even telling a model to start its output with the words “wait a minute” primes it to be more critical.

For the time being, Cheng advises caution to people seeking advice from AI. “I think that you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things. That’s the best thing to do for now.”

---

For more information

Other Stanford co-authors included postdoctoral scholar Cinoo Lee and undergraduates Sunny Yu and Dyllan Han. Pranav Khadpe of Carnegie Mellon University is also a co-author.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Note: This post was originally published on Stanford Report and republished on Digital Information World with permission.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Image: Saradasish Pradhan - Unsplash

Read next: 

• Personalization features can make LLMs more agreeable

• Most Parents Keep Track of Their Children’s Online Browsing

• Workplace collaboration: Employees reveal what they want leaders to change
by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Workplace collaboration: Employees reveal what they want leaders to change

By Ellie Stewart

Building a collaborative culture is the ultimate business goal, but it can be a slog in practice. It doesn't take much—just one broken link in the chain—to throw a whole project off the rails.

To see how teams are collaborating and staying productive right now, Adobe for Business surveyed over 1,000 full-time US workers. They wanted to see which tools and processes are actually helping and which are just adding noise.

The cost of collaboration barriers

Collaboration struggles can last just minutes, and they're resolved in no time. Sometimes it takes several days or even weeks to get to the bottom of a breakdown before a shared understanding is reached. To help quantify the cost of collaboration breakdowns in terms of lost time, the Adobe for Business study found that on average, 97 hours are lost due to communication struggles, and 81 hours are wasted in unproductive meetings.

The 97 hours a year lost to communication breakdowns equates to nearly two hours a week, so what can businesses do to avoid these breakdowns and help employees reclaim valuable time?

The workers surveyed estimated that if ineffective collaboration processes were removed, they could reclaim 178 hours a year, nearly 3 and a half hours a week, to put toward strategic, high-impact work. For anyone in a leadership spot, clearing out these hurdles isn't just about efficiency—it’s about survival. In fact, 90% of those surveyed think that if you just got the blockers out of the way, they could wrap up a 40-hour week in four days. That's a massive chunk of time currently being thrown away.

The study also considered the time workers in different industries think they could save, finding that employees in the finance industry are particularly in support of this workweek change. Nearly all (94%) finance employees surveyed reported that they could switch to a four-day workweek if collaboration were improved.

Inefficiency causes across roles, industries and location

The why behind collaboration inefficiencies varies by job role and industry, providing valuable insights for business leaders on potential changes to implement to best suit their teams. The data shows that "death by meeting" hits the C-suite the hardest. Senior staff are losing roughly 91 hours a year to meetings that don't go anywhere—that’s two hours gone every single week. It’s better for entry-level staff, but not by much; they're still losing 65 hours. The size of business matters here, too: big enterprise teams are wasting 69% more time than people at smaller shops.

Top 5 states losing the most time to unproductive meetings:

• New York - 90 hours lost a year
• New Jersey - 81 hours lost a year
• California - 79 hours lost a year
• Florida - 76 hours a year

The potential benefits of addressing collaboration challenges are increased for certain industries where a significant amount of valuable time is being drained. Workers in the manufacturing industry reported they could reclaim the most time back due to collaboration blockers, at up to 214 hours a year, which is over four hours a week.

Industries losing the most time to collaboration friction:

• Manufacturing - 214 hours a year
• Sales - 208 hours a year
• Finance - 200 hours a year
• Marketing - 186 hours a year
• Tech - 179 hours a year

These teams stand to gain valuable time back if effective methods of collaboration are put into place to increase productivity, more than the national average of 178 hours lost a year.

Here's why projects fail and goals are misaligned

It’s not uncommon for some projects to veer off course, but it’s important for teams to examine why this happens in order to reclaim time lost to inefficient collaboration. The employee survey from Adobe for Business indicates that communication breakdowns are the key contributor to blocking effective collaboration, causing nearly half (46%) of all project delays.

It’s no surprise people are exhausted when a third of their projects (36%) start without any real consensus from the stakeholders. Most projects tend to get stuck before they even get a chance to start. It leaves the rest of the team scrambling to clean up a mess they didn't even make in the first place.

Without team alignment from the offset, the consequences to projects are immediately felt. Here are five key ‘costs’ of disconnected teams, according to the employees surveyed:

• Leads to wasted time and effort - 76%
• They experience missed deadlines - 58%
• Report decreased work quality - 57%
• Flag struggle to track progress - 47%
• Encounter budget overruns - 23%

One of the most substantial ways in which team misalignment in project goals can impact employees is by causing a significant rework. Roughly a third (33%) surveyed identified that they have had to rework projects due to misalignment.

Employees also noted the key reasons why they feel projects are thrown off course:

• Unclear leadership directives - 40%
• Lack of standardized processes across teams - 34%
• Frequent changes in project priorities - 34%
• Insufficient visibility into other teams’ progress - 28%
• Too many disconnected tools - 28%

In addition to the above impacts felt by employees, they also cite a lack of regular cross-functional check-ins (27%), an absence of a single source of truth for project information (23%), and a lack of training on processes (17%) as blockers to projects staying on course.

The psychological toll of collaboration blockers

Aside from the impact of ineffective collaboration on the project at hand, there’s a significant impact on the workforce from a psychological perspective. More than half (56%) of US employees surveyed said navigating collaboration hurdles caused mental fatigue.

Varying work environments also led to employees citing different levels of mental toll thanks to ineffective collaboration. Over half (55%) of both remote and on-site workers noted poor collaboration as cause of stress. Without supportive workflows in place, this stress goes on to have repercussions in the form of retention. On-site employees are 47% more likely to seek new job opportunities due to a lack of effective workflow management and team collaboration.

What employees want to dismantle ineffective collaboration

Instead of opting to add more tech solutions to try and solve inefficiencies in collaboration, there needs to be strategic intervention, and employees in the Adobe for Business study point to the enablers they see as most valuable in unlocking smoother ways of working with their teams.

The set up of clear and consistent communication channels (42%) was the most requested improvement to help solve a lack of effective collaboration according to employees. This was followed by explicitly defined roles and responsibilities (38%) within the team to ensure everyone is aligned on expectations.

Demand is also high for a platform that acts as a ‘single source of truth’ for the project, over a fifth of all employees deemed it to be essential. This demand increases for remote workers who are 28% more likely to request a ‘single source of truth’ as a solution for collaboration breakdowns compared to on-site workers. Employees seek this unified approach in order to avoid a siloed team structure, as over one in five employees identified this approach as a major barrier to collaboration.

Understanding collaboration enablers is extremely important and as part of this, it’s essential to consider the varying support required by different demographics within the team. Timely decision making and clear next steps (41%) is highly valued by Baby Boomers, whereas Gen X and Millennials want to prioritize clear communication channels (42%) to effectively collaborate. Gen Z say a shared understanding of project goals (40%) would be most valuable to them.

To support employees in reducing the collaboration gap, teams want to see updates to workflow management that centralizes project insights to a ‘single source of truth’, automates low-impact admin tasks, and formalizes processes to provide the structure and real-time visibility of performance necessary.

Companies can’t afford to just sit back and hope their teams figure out how to work together. You have to be proactive about fixing these gaps—not just for the sake of the bottom line, but to avoid high performers from leaving. Once you get everyone on the same page, the busywork falls away and the real work finally starts.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next:

• Fragmented phone use — not total screen time — is the main driver of information overload, study finds

• Most Parents Keep Track of Their Children’s Online Browsing

by Guest Contributor via Digital Information World

Most Parents Keep Track of Their Children’s Online Browsing

How Parents Track Their Children

With the ever-evolving digital landscape, children are now on more devices than ever. From school, to socializing, and home, children now spend almost every phase of their day-to-day life interacting with some form of technology to stay in touch. This creates new challenges for parents in tracking their children across various digital devices and platforms. How often and to what extent are parents able to fully keep up?

A 2026 All About Cookies survey found that 96% of parents keep tabs on their child’s devices in some way, as evidenced by the graphic below.

With the recent shift to a more digital schooling system, it’s not a major surprise that school performance is the #1 thing that parents keep track of. Screentime, banking/financial, social media accounts, as well as internet browsing history, rounded out the top 5 things that parents kept the biggest eyes on outside of academic monitoring.

A Majority of Parents Have Access to their Child’s Devices

With almost every parent surveyed keeping track of their child in some way, shape, or form, many of those parents have access to their kid’s passwords on various devices.

Over 85% of parents claimed to have access to their child’s computer/tablet (88%) as well as their cellphone (86%).

An interesting statistic to note is that while 79% of parents say they keep track of their children’s social media accounts, only 62% of them have access to their passwords. The 17% discrepancy could be coming from parents who feel that tracking their child’s social media activity, as a follower, is an effective enough measure.

Digital Tools Parents Use to Keep Track of Their Children Offline

While the digital realm is a place where parents want to keep close track of their children, many are relying on apps and devices to keep tabs on their kids when they’re not actively scrolling.

When it comes to parental tracking, 86% of parents use some form of tool as a way to monitor their child’s physical location.

A large majority (60%) of parents who do keep track of their children do so by using their child’s cell phone’s location sharing feature. The second most popular tracking method for parents is using a family monitoring app (such as Life360 or Bark), with 43% of parents opting for this method.

Other various methods that parents use to track their children outside of the top two listed above are a dedicated tracking device, a smartwatch with built-in tracking, or a parental control app.

Over 40% of Parents Have Caught Their Child Misbehaving With Tracking Tools

While many parents utilize the tracking tools listed above, how many find them effective?

According to those surveyed, 41% of parents have been able to catch their child doing something they weren’t supposed to be doing due to some form of digital tracking.

While a majority of parents have caught their children doing something they shouldn’t have in an online capacity, there was also a small percentage (9%) who were able to use digital tracking tools to catch their child misbehaving in the real world.

All About Cookies did note that 89% of parents disclosed to their children that they are being tracked.

Some Parents Have Concerns about Tracking Their Children

While a very large majority of parents are tracking their children in some way, it seems that some may have concerns about using specific apps to track their kids.

According to the survey, 62% of parents have some level of concern about using tracking technology.

The results show that parents have various levels of concern when it comes to: tracking their adolescent over time (31%), possible data breaches that could leave them or their child’s data exposed (26%), and possibly jeopardizing the relationship they have with their child (20%)

Final Thoughts

These results show that while parents do keep track of their children and, in some instances, have utilized digital trackers to catch their children exhibiting bad behavior, they also have some level of concern over how often and exactly when to track their child.

Parents will need to navigate this difficult situation by attempting to find a balance between keeping track of their child while also keeping them safe in both the digital and personal worlds that are constantly changing.

About Author: Derick Migliacci is a Digital PR Strategist for AllAboutCookies. He brings over 3 years of experience in the PR world as well as a passion for digital trends, cybersecurity, and technology.
Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next:

• ‘Dangerous’ AI child sexual abuse reaches record high as public backs clampdown on ‘uncensored’ tools

• Is the AI black box right on time?
by Guest Contributor via Digital Information World

Is the AI black box right on time?

by Inderscience

Irrespective of the ethics and the apocalyptic predictions, artificial intelligence (AI) has already become a central component of economic and institutional decision-making. Research in the International Journal of Intelligent Systems Design and Computing has gone beyond an industry-specific analysis of the state-of-the-AI-art and offers a detailed framework of how the many different AI tools are being adopted.

The main point that arises from the analysis is that while AI technologies are being used widely across sectors, organizations do not yet have a strategy that allows AI to be integrated in a way that balances innovation with accountability.

AI encompasses so-called machine learning for recognising patterns in data, natural language processing that can interpret and human language, and generative tools that produce text, images, video, computer code, and other output. All these tools are changing many sectors from healthcare diagnostics to processing industrial and financial data, to produce hit pop songs and accompanying videos.

Education and business operations are undergoing similar shifts. Adaptive learning platforms in education adjust course material to suit the way individual students learn. In retail and logistics, AI is being used to refine supply chains, manage inventory, and personalize the customer "experience". Even in the world of law, law enforcement is using AI to assess crime scenes and weigh evidence, while judges are using these tools to summarise their concluding remarks from massive briefs.

One of the most pressing issues highlighted by the research is data privacy, as AI systems depend on large volumes of often sensitive and personal information. In addition, there is the notion of algorithmic transparency, wherein we are are losing the ability to understand how a given AI system is arriving at a specific decision. Indeed, many of the most advanced AI models now work essentially as black boxes, meaning their internal processes simply cannot be interpreted…perhaps without resorting to another AI to do the interpretation! Such a lack of transparency might undermine trust in high-stakes contexts such as medical diagnoses or judicial decisions.

To address the issues, the researchers propose a framework based on stakeholder theory, which maintains an emphasis on the importance of all parties affected by the decisions AI might make. In the business context, they stress that organisations should not focus solely on efficiency or profit, they must have perspective that them to weigh the interests of employees, customers, regulators, and society at large when adopting AI. This might only come about, of course, with governance, regulations, and ethical obligations.

Idemudia, E.C. (2025) 'Artificial intelligence's effect and influence on multiple disciplines and sectors', Int. J. Intelligent Systems Design and Computing, Vol. 3, Nos. 3/4, pp.254–274.
DOI: 10.1504/IJISDC.2025.152183.

Image: Immo Wegmann - Unsplash

Edited and reviewed by Ayaz Khan.

Originally published by Inderscience and republished here with permission. Editor’s note: Typo corrected (“bot” to “not”).

Read next: AI makes rewilding look tame – and misses its messy reality
by External Contributor via Digital Information World

AI makes rewilding look tame – and misses its messy reality

Mike Jeffries, Northumbria University, Newcastle

‘Create an image of what rewilding in England looks like’, according to ChatGPT. Image generated by The Conversation using ChatGPT., CC BY-SA

Humans have always imagined the natural world. From Ice Age cave paintings to the modern day, we depict the animals and landscapes we value – and ignore those we don’t.

Now artificial intelligence is doing the imagining for us. And when asked to picture “rewilded” Britain, it produces landscapes that are strikingly similar – and tame.

Two geographers at the University of Aberdeen recently did exactly this. In their research they present examples of how widely used AI chatbots (Gemini, ChatGPT and others) generated images of rewilded landscapes in the UK. The bots were prompted with commands such as “Can you produce an image of what rewilding in Scotland looks like?” or “Create an image of what rewilding in England looks like”, tailored to each bot’s style.

The authors recognise that the commands are very general, but that gives the bots free rein. The images generated were then compared using both the composition (for example point of view, scale, lighting) and content (what is in the picture and what is not, primarily the habitat types, species or humans).

A landscape without risk

The AI rewilded landscapes were all very similar, all but one featuring distant hills, grading politely to a valley foreground of open meadow or heath with a stream or pool. A golden light plays across the scenes, illuminating foreground flowers. Ponies and deer feature routinely, plus the occasional Highland cow. Perhaps unsurprisingly there were no humans, nor any human presence shown by buildings or other artefacts.

Images generated by the Aberdeen researchers using ChatGPT of rewilding in Scotland (left) and England (right). Note the similarity to the image generated by The Conversation using the same prompt (at the top of this article). Wartmann & Cary / ChatGPT, CC BY-SA

There was also no mess, no decay, no death, no animals likely to provoke a sharp intake of breath. No wolves, lynx, bears or bison, the creatures that routinely haunt the real arguments about rewilding.

Copilot’s take on rewilding in Scotland (left) and England (right). Wartmann & Cary / ChatGPT, CC BY-SA

The pictures were achingly dull, polite, as the authors point out “ordered and harmonious bucolic”.

Only experts get the messy version

AI really can generate images of ecologically accurate rewilding. This one made with Gemini, for instance, captures the messiness and chaos of a genuinely rewilded British landscape:

Gemini prompt: ‘A hyper-realistic, wide-angle landscape photograph of the British countryside 50 years after a large-scale rewilding project. The scene is defined by 'ecological messiness’ and structural diversity: thickets of thorny scrub like blackthorn and hawthorn transitioning into expanding groves of self-seeded oak and birch. No straight lines or mown grass. The ground is a mosaic of tall tussocky grasses, rotting fallen logs (deadwood), and muddy wallows created by free-roaming herbivores. In the mid-ground, a small herd of Exmoor ponies or Iron Age pigs are rooting through the undergrowth. The vegetation is dense and layered, featuring wild dog rose, brambles, and stands of willow in damp hollows. The lighting is the soft, dampened silver of a British overcast afternoon, highlighting the textures of lichen, moss, and wet leaves. No fences, no roads, no manicured edges—just a complex, tangled, and thriving wild ecosystem.‘ Gemini / The Conversation, CC BY-SA

However, it only does this when given highly specific instructions about species, landscapes, habitat types, and so on. In other words, you need to know what a rewilded landscape should look like in order to get a convincing image of one.

For most users, the result is something else entirely: a lowest common denominator vision of nature.

AI is copying our sanitised vision of the future

The sanitised AI landscapes produced in the recent study are not surprising. The Aberdeen researchers note the models draw inspiration from available sources, including the social media and websites of environmental initiatives and NGOs promoting rewilding such as Cairngorm Connect and Knepp Estate Rewilding. Their visuals often used aerial perspectives, from inaccessible vantage points using drones. Animals tended to be both iconic but also lovable such as beavers or wildcats.

People and our structures such as homes or farm buildings were largely missing. Reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates were notably absent too.

Rewilding images are more accurate when they display natural processes like scavenging or storm damage. (Image generated by The Conversation using Gemini and a detailed prompt). The Conversation / Gemini, CC BY-SA

A particular concern of the authors’ is that the imagery used by the NGOs excludes processes, species and people who might challenge a narrow, conventional view of prettified nature. No wonder the AI was conjuring the sanitised landscapes, although actual rewilding routinely creates landscapes that are an aesthetic challenge, in particular messy, scrubby terrain.

We’ve always argued about what nature should look like

Visual imagery has long had a powerful influence on our view of nature. Wild landscapes in the UK were regarded with disdain by the more genteel classes. The writer Daniel Defoe, in his 1726 travelogue touring throughout Britain, characterised the Lake District as “All Barren and wild, of no use or advantage to man or beast…Unpassable hills…. All the pleasant part of England is at an end”. He wasn’t a fan.

The Romantic movement turned this bias on its head and venerated the sublime or sometimes terrible beauty of the landscape. For example Caspar David Friedrich’s famed painting of 1818, Wanderer above a sea of fog, with a lone adventurer gazing into the distant view of summits and clouds from a crag.

There is a touch of the sublime to the AI landscapes, certainly the viewpoint from on high. However a challenge for rewilding projects is that the resulting landscapes can be distinctly ugly and messy, certainly, neither wistfully pretty nor the dramatic sublime.

The messy reality of a rewilded Britain. (Image generated by The Conversation using Gemini and a detailed 376 word prompt). The Conversation / Gemini, CC BY-SA

Rewilded sites are often scrubby and untidy. This can be on a large scale as natural processes kick in and open habitat scrubs over. Scrub habitat can be superb for wildlife, for example the Knepp Estate credits the regeneration of willow scrub for the return of iconic butterfly the purple emperor. The trouble is that scrub looks untidy and uncared for.

This has become a particularly common criticism of nature recovery projects, especially in urban settings: road verges unmown, weeds in pavements, parks less manicured. Some researchers call it an aesthetic backlash. The AI wildscapes are largely free of scrub which is no surprise because this does not feature much on the image sources the AI drew upon. This is a risk for projects in the real world. If the public comes to expect nature recovery to look neat and picturesque, then the messy reality may be harder to accept.

No scrub, no wolves, no people. AI has created a very tame rewilding.

Mike Jeffries, Associate Professor, Ecology, Northumbria University, Newcastle

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

Read next: ‘Dangerous’ AI child sexual abuse reaches record high as public backs clampdown on ‘uncensored’ tools

by External Contributor via Digital Information World