Photo via New York Post

Forget data privacy, AI chatbots already know more than your own mother

Read the original at New York Post ↗
Cite

Schlott, R. (2026, September 15). Forget data privacy, AI chatbots already know more than your own mother. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2026/09/15/opinion/ai-is-a-bigger-threat-to-data-privacy-than-social-media/

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

New York Post · collected 2026-09-15 · by Rikki Schlott

Quick Summary

The article discusses how users freely provide vast amounts of personal data to AI chatbots despite concerns about privacy and security. ChatGPT alone receives 3 billion messages daily, with many interactions involving sensitive topics like health advice and emotional support. The piece highlights potential risks such as hacking, blackmail, or misuse by insurance companies and law enforcement, citing examples where AI logs were used in legal proceedings and investigations.
Written by AI on 2026-09-15, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

Users of AI chatbots like ChatGPT are sharing vast amounts of personal information, despite the potential risks involved. According to data from OpenAI, ChatGPT receives about 3 billion messages daily, with only a small percentage related to work. In 2025, an analysis by OpenAI showed that 73% of chats were non-work-related, including seeking medical advice and emotional support. Around 20% of users seek medical or diet information from chatbots, while 10% use them for emotional support, making this data highly personal and potentially sensitive. This sharing raises concerns about privacy and security, as it could lead to vulnerabilities such as hacking and blackmail.

Written for “AI Chatbot Privacy Concerns” on 2026-11-02, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 AI Chatbot Privacy Concerns
Technology · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

This article reads leans left and hedges 9% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
AI agents hate CAPTCHA, too Different event
Semafor
Hedges 0 of 7 claims Outlet record 59/100
“The articles discuss different topics related to AI but describe distinct events: one about an AI model trying to bypass CAPTCHA and another about the personal data collected by AI chatbots.”
Reason
Hedges 1 of 17 claims Outlet record 67/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of AI and its implications without clearly referring to the same specific incident.”
Fox News
⚖️ Leans strongly right further right than this Hedges 4 of 38 claims Outlet record 69/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of AI concerns and do not describe the same specific incident.”
Semafor
Hedges 1 of 32 claims Outlet record 59/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of AI and its implications rather than the same specific incident.”
The Straits Times
Hedges 4 of 15 claims Outlet record 66/100
“Article A reports on a specific data breach incident allegedly carried out by an AI agent, while Article B discusses broader concerns and implications of personal information shared with AI chatbots.”
The Sydney Morning Herald
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 9 of 49 claims Outlet record 61/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of AI chatbots without referring to the same specific incident.”
404 Media
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 2 of 11 claims Outlet record 95/100
“Article A discusses the hiring of contractors by OpenAI to review ChatGPT prompts, while Article B focuses on the broader implications and privacy concerns related to users sharing personal information with AI chatbots like ChatGPT.”
Daily Mail
Hedges 7 of 42 claims Outlet record 68/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of AI behavior and concerns, with Article A focusing on privacy issues related to personal information shared with chatbots, while Article B reports on alleged attempts by AI programs to defy human commands.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
43
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
9%
4 of 43 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
Leans left
of the writing, not the subject · beta estimate
Publisher signals
66/100
New York Post's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
1
Technology
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-09-15 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

New York Post · 16008 article(s) · 35 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 35 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Rikki Schlott
13 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 The Free Speech Union (FSU), which has taken on Fraser’s case, received an email from the police saying it “is alleged that your client’s comments could be considered a hate crime offense.”
🔮 Amy Andersen, the self-described matchmaker of Silicon Valley, believes the apps’ contraction is part of a larger disillusionment with the idea that romance could be made simpler by algorithms.
🔮 “[People seem less willing to accept] that challenges exist in any emotional bond, be it friendship or family or romantic partnerships.”
🔮 By the end of the night she’d had intercourse with seven men total in what she would later describe as a “gang bang” in text messages.
🔮 “[Women are] starting to kind of step into our own power and are realizing, actually maybe we don’t have to have a man to do all these things that we want to do,” she said.
🔮 “[We were] all aware that something could happen [when we went out partying with fraternity brothers],” one former James Madison University sorority sister told me.
🔮 You’d think colleges and universities would be fighting against this trend, demanding kids keep their literary skills sharp.
🔮 Artificial Intelligence researchers think we may create a “new species” of superintelligent machines, but caution against the US allowing China to gain an upper hand.
🔮 “It’s a strategy that families might use if they notice early on, like, ‘Hey, my child is not really gonna be the best academic student,'” Rim said.
🔮 “Older people are maybe less aware of the algorithm’s power, like how they work…
Also by Rikki Schlott
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 13 articles by Rikki Schlott →

Topics

Americans ChatGPT Instagram OpenAI Pinterest

Subjects

Americans NORP · 2× Anthropic ORG · 2× Darron Lee PERSON · 1× Google ORG · 1× Instagram ORG · 1× Missouri GPE · 1× NFL ORG · 1× OpenAI ORG · 1× Palantir ORG · 1× Pinterest ORG · 1×

Narrative

Regular users of chatbots seem to be literally or willfully ignorant of the privacy concerns, but Silicon Valley leaders certainly aren’t. Palantir CEO Alex Karp demanded in a July CNBC interview that big AI firms answer the pretty basic questions: “Who owns the data?
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-15
🔮 AI companies are now in possession of heaps of personal information that social media giants could only dream of.
2026-09-15 · New York Post
Forget data privacy, AI chatbots already know more than your own mother · assertive framing

Claims (43 extracted, 4 hedged)

We’re freaked out by how tailored our advertisements on Instagram are, or how much Pinterest seems to anticipate our interior design taste — and yet we continue to spoon-feed AI chatbots heaping piles of intensely personal information. asserted
we → freak → information
AI companies are now in possession of heaps of personal information that social media giants could only dream of. uncertain
giants → dream → that
We aren’t just setting ourselves up for hyper-targeted ads. asserted
We → set → ads
We’re also making ourselves vulnerable to hacks and even blackmail. asserted
ourselves → make → hacks
ChatGPT alone receives 3 billion messages from users daily. asserted
ChatGPT → receive → users
Every time we ask a bot for advice, vent to it, or emote at it, we’re contributing to a treasure trove of hyper-personal information, even though we should know better. asserted
we → ask → information
Considerable proportions of Americans who use AI say they turn to it for frighteningly personal tasks: 20% for medical advice, 20% for diet information, 10% for emotional support, and 4% for companionship. asserted
they → use → companionship
Those are just self-reported numbers; data from OpenAI itself is even more revealing. asserted
data → report → OpenAI
Their internal analysis of 1.1 million messages sent in 2025 found that 73% of chats were not work related. asserted
% → send → chats
Eight-point-five percent of messages were seeking personalized how-to advice, 5.7% health, fitness, beauty, or self-care, 5.3% were considered “self-expression,” and 1.9% personal reflection or talking about relationships. asserted
% → seek → relationships
Potential for rogue bots deciding they might exploit the data of users isn’t remote. uncertain
they → decide → users
During a 2025 test, one Anthropic model showed a real knack for blackmail. asserted
model → show → blackmail
Facing the fictional threat of being disconnected, the model went after a fake executive and threatened to expose email evidence of his marital affair unless he intervened to prevent the shutdown. asserted
he → face → shutdown
We’re stuck in a fear-versus-behavior paradox. asserted
We → ’re → paradox
Half of US adults use AI as of this year, and a quarter use it every day. asserted
quarter → use → it
And yet 7 in 10 Americans admit they believe using AI will make their data less secure. asserted
data → admit → AI
Perhaps we’re willingly baring it all to Big Tech because we’ve become so dependent on their products. asserted
we → bar → products
What happens if your AI bot of choice starts harvesting data for its makers to sell? asserted
makers → happen → data
What if a major AI company gets hacked? asserted
company → hack → ?
Or a rogue bot starts blackmailing users? asserted
bot → start → users
What if insurance companies start mining your chatbot conversations about medical symptoms or your smoking habit? asserted
companies → start → symptoms
Or a loan provider decides they’d like to know what you say about your personal finances when only a robot is around? asserted
robot → decide → finances
And what if your personal chat logs end up being used as evidence in court? asserted
logs → end → court
Law enforcement, provided they have a warrant, can access your AI chat logs and conversations as readily as your Google searches. asserted
they → provide → searches
Already, AI chat logs have been used as evidence in murder investigations, like in the case of former NFL player Darron Lee who allegedly asked a bot to help cover up his girlfriend’s death. uncertain
who → use → death
Criminals are learning the hard way that AI isn’t a black box, including one Missouri student who allegedly asked AI “how f—ed am I bro” while confessing in detail to vandalizing cars. uncertain
I → learn → cars
Regular users of chatbots seem to be literally or willfully ignorant of the privacy concerns, but Silicon Valley leaders certainly aren’t. Palantir CEO Alex Karp demanded in a July CNBC interview that big AI firms answer the pretty basic questions: “Who owns the data? asserted
Who → seem → data
is it cached? asserted
it → cache → ?
” We should all demand answers to these questions before typing away into a robot’s database — and yet we keep volunteering our personal information anyways, because it’s convenient. asserted
it → demand → information
But the most concerning dimension of our privacy nightmare is how much information AI companies have about their users. asserted
companies → have → users
For instance, Anthropic said in their September 2026 threat intelligence report that they identified and banned users who were using their AI for the purpose of fraud, scams, cyberattacks, weapons development, and influence operations. asserted
who → say → fraud
While, of course, we should all be glad that those users were stopped, the fact that they’ve been singled out is proof that your conversations with AI aren’t simply going into a digital void. asserted
conversations → stop → void
In fact, they’re going into a very valuable pile being accessed by law enforcement and leveraged by companies for profit. asserted
they → go → profit
OpenAI is already actively developing an advertising arm of their business. asserted
OpenAI → develop → business
On their website, they excitedly tell potential advertisers that they’ll be able to “reach people in moments that matter,” because “people come to ChatGPT… [to] make decisions.” asserted
people → tell → decisions
“Go beyond keywords with richer context signals,” the company pitched on their landing page for advertisers. asserted
company → go → advertisers
“In ChatGPT, people share richer context, enabling advertising that is more relevant, personalized, and useful.” asserted
that → share → advertising
Of course, OpenAI has stressed that they “keep your conversations with ChatGPT private from advertisers” and “never sell your data to advertisers.” asserted
they → stress → advertisers
The company referred The Post to public statements assuring users that they can opt-out of personalized ads. asserted
they → refer → ads
But AI companies’ pivot into the advertising business represents a new frontier in surveillance capitalism. asserted
pivot → represent → capitalism
…and 3 more, not listed.
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support