AI has moved from the realm of science fiction into the everyday of Australian life. What was an emerging technology just a few years ago is now embedded in how we search, write, plan, shop and work.

Yet while much of the public conversation focuses on what AI can do, our new research highlights how people feel about it.

The findings reveal duality. More than half of Australians (54%) are now using AI in their personal lives at least weekly, with one in ten (10%) using it multiple times a day, 16% daily and 28% weekly. People are finding value in these tools. At the same time, many hold reservations about the impact of AI particularly when it comes to their careers.

In this article, we unpack what the data tells us about how AI is reshaping the career landscape, and what workers, parents and leaders can do in response.

A threat more than a tool

For all the excitement surrounding AI, Australians are approaching it with more caution than optimism. When presented with the statement “I see AI as a threat more than a tool for society”, almost seven in ten Australians (70%) agreed, with one in four strongly agreeing.

It tells us that the dominant public sentiment towards AI is not enthusiasm but apprehension. While there are plenty of voices painting a picture of what AI makes possible technologically, the reaction to AI tell a more complex story. Australians are using AI in many different ways, yet they remain sceptical of it.

The quiet fear in the workplace

One in four Australians (23%) are extremely or very concerned that they will lose their job in the next 12 months due to AI. For workplace leaders, this deserves attention. In a team of 20 people, around five may be carrying the fear that their role could disappear within the year. That concern may never be voiced but it is present. This creates an interesting tension. Organisations are pursuing every possible productivity gain, and AI promises to accelerate work and improve margins.

Yet the human side of that equation, how workers feel about the technology being introduced around them, is often overlooked. The data suggests that the success of AI in the workplace will depend as much on managing sentiment as on deploying software.

A generational lens on AI

While scepticism is present across every generation, it is most pronounced among older Australians. 65% of Gen Z see AI as more of a threat than a tool, rising to four in five (80%) Baby Boomers.

Yet younger Australians face a unique kind of exposure. They may be more confident with technology and quicker to adapt, but their life stage leaves them more exposed from a jobs perspective. Gen Z are choosing their courses of study, entering the workforce and working out what career is right for them, all at the very moment AI is reshaping entry-level roles.

For this generation, AI represents both great opportunity and great challenge. They are moving into a knowledge economy equipped with AI tools, but they are also making decisions about their future with far less certainty than previous generations. Some are already changing courses or career direction in an effort to future-proof themselves against disruption at the very start of their working lives.

Looking further ahead, Generation Alpha will be the first generation to have AI at their fingertips throughout their secondary schooling. How they learn to use it, and how parents and educators guide them, will shape the workforce of the 2030s.

How Australian workers are responding

Concern about AI is not leading to paralysis. Instead, many Australians are taking practical steps to prepare. When asked what they had done in the past six months in response to concerns about AI-driven job losses, workers pointed to two leading actions.

Staying up to date with AI in their industry. The most common response was keeping informed about how AI is being used in their field. This is re-skilling and retooling happening in real time, and it reflects what leaders at the cutting edge are already doing: paying close attention to how their industry is evolving, regardless of age or seniority.

Researching more AI-resistant careers. The second most common response was researching careers or industries seen as less vulnerable to AI disruption. This ties directly back to the sense of threat. Workers in industries already experiencing disruption are considering where they might find greater security in the years ahead.

Together, these responses show a workforce that is anxious but adaptive. Australians are not simply waiting to see what happens. They are learning, planning and, in some cases, preparing to pivot. For employers, this represents both a risk and an opportunity: the risk of losing talent to perceived safer industries, and the opportunity to harness a workforce that is actively seeking to build new capabilities.

What this means for leaders

• Understand the sentiment. If 70% of your workforce see AI as more of a threat than a tool, declaring your organisation “AI first” or rolling out AI everywhere without context is likely to heighten anxiety rather than build buy-in.
• Reframe AI from cost-out to value-add. When employees hear leaders talk about AI, they often hear cost reduction. Historically, that has meant fewer staff and the removal of simpler tasks, so it is little wonder people feel their jobs are under threat. The better approach is to position AI as a value-adding tool that expands the pie rather than simply reducing costs. When AI is framed around innovation, growth and doing things that you previously couldn’t, teams are far more likely to get on board.
• Lead with foresight. Leaders look further down the road than their teams. Being aware of the trends, the sentiment and the lay of the land allows leaders to guide their people with confidence through a period of significant change.
• Lead with coherent values. Perhaps most importantly, leaders need clarity on the purpose of AI within their organisation. When leaders are clear that AI is a tool to support people, not replace them, and that the organisation holds a strong commitment to putting people first, it gives teams the confidence to embrace change.

The message for teams can be simple: we are building something here that is supported by AI, but not ruled by it. That framing builds morale, strengthens culture and unlocks the collaborative, agile innovation that genuinely drives productivity.

Article supplied with thanks to McCrindle.

About the Author: McCrindle are a team of researchers and communications specialists who discover insights, and tell the story of Australians – what we do, and who we are.

Feature image: canva.com

A third of young people are now using an AI companion, according to new research.

The RELATE Project 2026, by Christian youth ministry Young Life, spoke to over 7,100 teenagers and young adults across 11 different countries including the US, UK, Argentina, Mexico, India and Nigeria.

Its study found that in 2025 the average young person had 4.4 close relationships, down from 5.3 in 2023.

When it comes to discussing the subjects that really matter to them, on average, young people said they only had two people in their lives who they trusted to do that.

Confidentiality Key To Helping Young People

Around 40% of young people said they were not fully confident that there was a single adult in their life who had a genuine interest in listening to them.

In order to build trust with such an adult, 73% said that confidentiality was the most important factor.

“Without confidentiality, people will shut down and go back to not talking about feelings,” one participant said.

Dr Kimberly Nollan, Director of Research and Practice at Young Life, said: “To walk alongside today’s young people, we have to put down our own distractions and show up in their world.”

“This starts with proving we are safe enough to listen – protecting their confidentiality and offering space for them without immediately trying to offer advice or judgement.”

40% Of Young People Don’t Feel Worthy

The study found close relationships to be a protective factor against challenges and hardships in life. 

“In RELATE 2024, we found four in 10 young people were not confident they were worthy of being loved. This finding broke our hearts!” said Young Life.

“In RELATE 2026, we see a similar dynamic: 62% of Gen Z and Alpha rate their worthiness of being loved at an 8, 9, or 10 out of 10, leaving nearly four in 10 who report lower certainty.”

Those without a religious faith affiliation appear to be particularly vulnerable, with only half reporting confidence that they’re worthy of being loved.

Third of Young People Use An AI “Friend”

The research found that while most young people prefer face to face communication with their friends (64% – up 10 points from 2023), the use of AI companions appears to becoming more prevalent, particularly with younger teenagers.

Over a third (35%) of young people reported using an AI companion, rising to 45% among those aged 13 to 15. 

A majority (60%) of those who use an AI companion say they feel more comfortable sharing their problems with AI than with real-world friends and family.

“Young People Would Prefer Trusted Adults As Mentors”

But Newt Crenshaw, President and CEO of Young Life, explained that’s not what they really want.

“The RELATE Project tells us that while young people are constantly connected online, they are craving authentic, in-person community.”

“They don’t want perfect, frictionless screens.”

“They are looking for trusted, consistent adults who will step into their worlds, earn and keep their trust, and simply be there to listen.”

Young Africans Turning To AI “Friends”

The findings offer a particularly interesting picture for Africa where five countries were surveyed — Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Liberia and Ethiopia.

Millions of young Africans are coming online as the continent undergoes a rapid digital transformation.

Technology is increasingly filling gaps that already exist in their relationships.

“Very Few People Show Up For Me”

One of the clearest examples came from a Zimbabwean male participant who described himself as “being someone others turn to during difficult moments.”

“I’m the kind of person people go to when they’re going through things, but very few people show up for me,” he observed.

He said that after training his AI system to respond in ways he found useful, he sometimes turned to it when he was at his lowest to have deep conversations and work through his problems.

That experience helps explain why AI companionship is gaining traction among young people.

Loneliness Epidemic For Young People

The World Health Organization’s Commission On Social Connect  reported in 2025 that about one in five adolescents and young adults experience loneliness.

The rate was higher in low-income countries, where 24.3% of people reported loneliness compared with 11.2% in high-income countries.

The commission said loneliness is shaped by social and economic conditions as well as technology.

A recent Kenya study involving 1,445 secondary school students found loneliness was central to a network of psychosocial factors affecting adolescents, including depression, anxiety, social support and well-being.

Top Takeaways From Study

Young Life concludes the main takeaways of the latest survey are:

• Gen Z and Gen Alpha sincerely want relationships with us. 
• They also have a lot to offer us, and the world. 
• They’re willing to challenge bad precedents and call out empty promises. 
• They’re optimistic, even if they feel anxious. 
• They’re kind, emotionally attuned, and they want to help make the world a better place. 
• It takes time and work to learn how to be human. 
• Being human includes being embodied. 
• It includes asking questions. 
• It includes deep relationships with others. 
• It includes faith in something even if it’s not God.

Article supplied with thanks to Vision Christian Media.

Feature image: canva.com

For generations, the career advice seemed straightforward: get educated, learn to think, and try to make a living with your brain rather than your back.

Knowledge work was the safe end of the labour market. The plumber did something useful, certainly, but the accountant, analyst, lawyer or coder had the more future-proof career.

Artificial intelligence is beginning to scramble that logic. Generative AI lives in the environment we have spent decades making machine-readable: documents, databases, spreadsheets, code, email and screens. A plumber, nurse or electrician still has to navigate an unruly physical world full of awkward spaces, unpredictable people and endless edge cases. In some settings, it may be easier to automate the first draft of a legal memo than to replace a leaking pipe behind a wall.

That does not mean the white-collar job apocalypse has arrived. The evidence so far is much more complicated. But it does suggest we may be asking the wrong question when we obsess over which jobs AI will take. The more useful question is this: what becomes valuable when intelligence gets cheap?

Capability is not the same as displacement

There is no shortage of dramatic predictions. AI companies are scenario-planning for unemployment levels that would once have sounded unthinkable. Business leaders have warned of enormous disruption. At the other extreme, optimists point to every previous technological revolution and argue that new jobs will emerge as old ones disappear.

At this point, neither camp has enough evidence to declare victory.

One of the more useful pieces of research in the material I have been studying came from Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers who tried to move beyond conventional AI benchmarks. They identified more than 11,500 workplace tasks, ran workplace-style versions of those tasks through more than 40 AI models, and had people in the relevant occupations judge whether the output was actually usable. By 2025, AI could complete roughly 65 per cent of text-based tasks to a minimally acceptable standard, up from around half the year before.

That is extraordinary progress. It is also easy to misread. ‘Good enough’ is not the same as reliable, error-free or ready to run unsupervised inside a real organisation. Legal work, for instance, performed relatively poorly because precision, judgement and strategic guidance matter. Management tasks could often be accelerated, but coordination and decision-making remained harder.

This is the distinction that gets lost in much of the jobs debate. A technology being capable of performing a task does not mean an organisation will immediately deploy it, that customers will accept it, regulators will permit it, or that the surrounding job disappears.

Jobs are bundles of tasks. AI can remove some, accelerate others and increase the value of the remainder. We may therefore see a great deal of task displacement before we see equivalent job displacement.

The safest jobs may not be where we thought

For years, automation anxiety focused heavily on factories, warehouses and transport. Robots were coming for physical labour first, or so the story went.

Physical automation is certainly advancing. Humanoid robots can now run, kick footballs and perform eye-catching demonstrations. Yet the World Humanoid Robot Games also test machines on wonderfully mundane activities such as connecting cables, handling warehouse goods and completing industrial assembly. The reason is revealing: the physical world is messy.

Molly Kinder at The Brookings Institution has described this as the ‘messy middle’. Hospitals, restaurants, construction sites, airports and nursing homes require dexterity, situational awareness, trust and constant adjustment to circumstances nobody anticipated in advance. Cognitive work conducted inside a computer is often much more structured.

There is an irony here. The economy spent decades telling young people that manual work was vulnerable and knowledge work was secure. AI may make that distinction considerably less useful.

NVIDIA chief Jensen Huang has even argued that the AI infrastructure boom will create huge demand for electricians, plumbers, carpenters and construction workers. Someone still has to build the data centres, factories, power systems and physical infrastructure behind all this supposedly immaterial intelligence.

None of this makes trades immune from automation. It simply reminds us that technological exposure is not distributed according to old assumptions about occupational status.

When Abundance Arrives, Scarcity Moves

Economics has a habit of rewarding scarcity. For much of modern working life, competent intellectual output was scarce enough to command a premium. Research took time. A polished first draft took skill. Code required specialists. Analysis depended on people who had spent years learning a field. AI is beginning to make some of those outputs abundant.

Organisational psychologist Adam Grant recently put the creative version of this idea neatly: when ideas become abundant, taste and tenacity matter more. Good judgement and execution become scarce. I think the same principle extends far beyond creativity.

Researchers Roberto Rigobon and Isabella Loaiza at MIT Sloan School of Management have developed a useful framework for the human capabilities that remain particularly complementary to AI. They call it EPOCH: Empathy and emotional intelligence; Presence, networking and connectedness; Opinion, judgement and ethics; Creativity and imagination; and Hope, vision and leadership.

What makes their work interesting is not merely the list. In an analysis spanning 19,000 tasks across 950 occupations, they found that newly emerging workplace tasks showed higher levels of these human-intensive capabilities than tasks that had disappeared. In other words, work may already be evolving towards some of the things humans remain unusually good at.

This leads to what I think of as the Scarcity Shift. Whenever technology makes a capability abundant, look for where scarcity moves.

When answers become abundant, good questions appreciate. When content becomes abundant, taste appreciates. When synthetic communication becomes abundant, trust appreciates. When competent analysis becomes abundant, judgement appreciates. When execution gets easier, deciding what deserves to be executed becomes more important.

The point is not that these qualities are uniquely or permanently human. It is that their relative economic value can rise as other capabilities become easier to access.

The Apprenticeship Paradox

There is one part of this transition that worries me more than most: entry-level work.

Junior roles have always contained a fair amount of low-value activity. Graduates research, summarise, prepare first drafts, build presentations, check documents and perform routine analysis. Organisations tolerate the inefficiency partly because this is how people learn. You do the basic work, watch more experienced colleagues, make mistakes, develop judgement and gradually earn responsibility for harder decisions. AI is becoming very good at the bottom rungs of that ladder.

Randstad’s Gen Z Workplace Blueprint, drawing on more than 11,000 workers and an analysis of 126 million job postings globally, found postings for roles requiring zero to two years’ experience had fallen 29 percentage points since January 2024. Technology, logistics and finance recorded particularly large falls. Randstad does not attribute that decline solely to AI, and neither should we. Economic conditions and hiring cycles matter too. But the direction deserves attention.

It creates an apprenticeship paradox: if AI removes the work beginners used to do, how do beginners become experts?

Hybrid work adds another wrinkle. Research on remote work increasingly describes the office not simply as a place to complete tasks but as social infrastructure: a place where younger workers overhear conversations, observe how experienced colleagues handle ambiguity, build networks and absorb tacit knowledge that is difficult to put in a manual.

We could therefore end up removing junior tasks at the same time as we weaken some of the informal mechanisms through which juniors traditionally learned to move beyond them.

That is not an argument for dragging everybody back to a desk five days a week. It is an argument for redesigning early-career development deliberately. If AI does the first draft, a graduate may need earlier exposure to clients, decisions, critique and judgement rather than simply being given less work.

AI Fluency will be Baseline, Not the Differentiator

There is a danger in all this talk about human skills. It can quickly turn into comforting advice to focus on empathy and leave the technology to somebody else. That would be a mistake.

Randstad‘s 2026 Workmonitor surveyed 27,000 workers and 1,225 employers across 35 markets and analysed more than three million job postings. Vacancies asking for ‘AI agent’ skills had surged 1,587 per cent. Governments are responding too. The UK has announced an ambition to provide practical AI skills training to 10 million workers by 2030.

AI fluency is rapidly becoming part of basic professional literacy. The advantage will not come from choosing between technical and human capability. It will come from combining them.

The person who can use AI well and exercise sound judgement over its output is more useful than the person who does only one of those things. The manager who can automate routine analysis but still read a room has an advantage. The marketer who can generate 100 ideas in minutes but has the taste to discard 97 of them has an advantage. The adviser who can retrieve an answer instantly but knows which question the client is really asking has an advantage.

Being human is not, by itself, a career strategy. Human capabilities have to be developed with the same seriousness we once reserved for technical expertise.

Organisations Will Move More Slowly than the Technology

Another reason to resist precise predictions about mass unemployment is that organisations are stubborn things.

AI models can improve in months. Companies do not. They have legacy systems, budgets, risk committees, regulators, customers, employment laws, managers, incentives and habits. A technically possible automation can take years to become an operational reality.

Australian middle-market research from Pitcher Partners illustrates the gap. In its 2025 Business Radar survey, 72 per cent of leaders said they were actively using AI tools, yet only 13 per cent had made AI a genuine strategic priority with dedicated budgets and plans to scale. Adoption is widespread; transformation is not. That gap buys people time. But it would be foolish to confuse slow organisational change with low eventual impact.

Walmart offers a more plausible picture of the next phase than either utopia or apocalypse. CEO Doug McMillon has said AI will change essentially every job in the company. Walmart has been automating warehouse and back-of-store work while creating roles such as ‘agent builders’ and continuing to need people in high-touch roles. The company has indicated its overall workforce could remain broadly flat while the business grows, meaning the composition of work changes even when total employment does not collapse.

That may be the pattern to watch: not jobs vanishing in neat occupational blocks, but organisations progressively unbundling work and redistributing tasks between people and machines.

The Repricing of Human Capability

Nobody can responsibly tell you today whether AI will eventually create more jobs than it destroys. The range of credible possibilities is simply too wide. Anthropic is openly scenario-planning for everything from modest disruption to a world in which demand for human labour is persistently lower. Other researchers point out that we have not yet seen anything resembling that level of displacement in aggregate labour-market data.

Both facts can be true. The job apocalypse is not here, and preparing for significant disruption is still sensible.

What we can see more clearly is a repricing already underway. Some cognitive tasks that once required scarce expertise are becoming cheaper. Some physical skills look more resilient than expected. Early-career pathways need redesign. AI literacy is becoming baseline. And capabilities such as judgement, trust, taste, curiosity, leadership and human connection are becoming more important precisely because information and competent output are becoming easier to produce.

For leaders, that suggests a useful exercise. Don’t only ask which jobs AI could automate. Ask three questions instead:

What just became cheap?
What remains scarce?
What becomes more valuable because of the change?

Those questions will produce different answers in a law firm, hospital, mine, school, retailer or construction company. They will also change as the technology improves.

That is why I suspect the future of work will be less about protecting a fixed list of ‘human jobs’ and more about continually noticing where value has moved.

The future of work won’t simply be shaped by what machines learn to do. It will be shaped by what remains valuable once they can.

Article supplied with thanks to Michael McQueen.

About the Author: Michael is a trends forecaster, business strategist and award-winning conference speaker. His most recent book Mindstuck explores the psychology of stubbornness and how to change minds – including your own.

Feature image: canva.com

Australians are using AI, but many still don’t trust it.

In the 1980s, when mobile phones first launched there was a common reaction.

People looked at the brick-sized devices and said ‘Why would I ever want or need to talk to someone while walking down the street?’ In the 1980s being reachable everywhere by phone felt ridiculous and intrusive.

And well, here we are today.

Not only are we talking while walking down the street, we’re running businesses, ordering groceries, navigating foreign cities, and more.

Looking back, we laugh. But as is said history repeats itself. Every single time new technology emerges, humans experience two very natural reactions, a mixture of intrigue and optimism, as well as hesitation and scepticism. And now, here we are again at the precipice with Artificial Intelligence.

AI promises many things, and with the rapid rate of progress it’s being weaved into our lives. In this article, we draw on insights from our report Shaping a human-centred AI future to explore sentiment towards AI, the use of AI and the future of work.

The duality of AI

While many are excited about the arrival and use of AI, 47% of Australians are extremely or very concerned about the integration of AI into everyday life. This hesitation may stem from AI’s ‘black box’ nature. People input a request on one side, but because the inner workings remain hidden out of sight, it naturally creates a sense of uncertainty.

70% of Australians see AI as a threat more than a tool. This high level of caution suggests that most people do not yet see AI as a helpful partner. Instead, they view it as a potential threat to their safety, jobs, or privacy. This increases for the older generation with 80% of Baby Boomers saying they see AI as more of a threat than a tool, compared to just 65% of Gen Z.

Despite the concern, people are making AI part of their everyday life

When asked how often do you use AI in your personal life three in five Australians are using AI such as ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini in their personal life at least monthly (63%), with just over half using it weekly (54%).

Younger generations are more likely than their older counterparts to embrace the tool, with two thirds of Gen Z (66%) and Gen Y (65%) using it at least weekly. Although there is a high uptake of users, a quarter of Australians never use it in their personal life. This increases to almost half for Baby Boomers (48% never use AI in their personal life).

Activities trusted with AI usage

With AI transforming the gathering of information, it is important to understand where consumers trust lies in its recommendations and advice. Particularly if more people were to turn to AI rather than engaging a traditional service, the impact on businesses could be significant. At this stage AI is trusted for activities that can be perceived as lower risk. Three in five Australians turn to AI for travel advice (61%) or personal recommendations (58%).

Just over two in five Australians (44%) trust AI to provide accurate unbiased information. With trust still to grow in the accuracy of information provided by AI, it is unsurprising that Australians are less likely to trust AI to give financial (41%) or health advice (39%). As time goes on and trust grows, however, Australians may look to AI to provide support in a cost-effective streamlined way.

Organisations need to take advantage of new technology to stay relevant, however, there is an equal need to keep investing in the next generation of workers. Without this investment, a major gap in expertise will likely emerge in the next decade when experienced staff are needed. In fact, 46% of Australians are extremely or very concerned that relying on AI for basic tasks hinders the development of future leaders.

The greatest word of caution is to embrace the tool while rejecting cognitive surrender. The ease of using AI should not lead to atrophy of the mind. Instead, it is essential to maintain critical thinking and the unique traits that define humanity.

The ideal future is one where humanity is kept at the centre. Ultimately the success of AI integration will not be measured by the level of automation, but by how well human ingenuity is protected by the technology that was built to serve it.

Article supplied with thanks to McCrindle.

About the Author: McCrindle are a team of researchers and communications specialists who discover insights, and tell the story of Australians – what we do, and who we are.

Feature image: Canva

In a world proliferated by the use of AI, what do parents need to know to keep their children safe from the unspoken dangers?

What would you expect to hear if you asked 300 teens about their last use of AI? One student told me he’d made gravy for dinner the previous night. Big tick!

But every other student—all aged 14 and 15—had used it instead of thinking. They’d used it to find out how to ask someone on a date, to cheat, to do their homework, to ask for tips on getting more pocket money, to bully a peer and even to compose email messages so they didn’t have to waste time considering how they might respond.

In short, they outsourced their thinking to a machine, which will then use what they ask to feed the hungry algorithms that determine what pops into their social media accounts. A cycle that becomes increasingly vicious.

The Unspoken Dangers of AI

AI is not—and will not—be included in any social media ban, and some of its dangers are lost in the headlines that warn about romances with chatbots and the use of AI deep fake imagery.

Of course those instances, which are increasingly common, can lead to harrowing outcomes. Indeed eSafety research this week shows that more than half of children (54 per cent) who are using AI assistants and companions do so for personal and social reasons (like talking about their feelings and discussing their mental health).

Heartbreakingly, as a sign of how lonely many of our children are, one in three AI users are sharing big secrets with AI—and that includes photographs!

The public discussion about that is loud, and that means that we, as parents and carers, are increasingly aware of it. But what about that use that might not be so obvious, and takes over the importance of our children thinking for themselves?

Experts I spoke to in my year-long research warned that could lead to the loss of other skills that are crucial for our children’s growth and development. Not just research skills, but persistence and grit, communication and negotiation. 

I really think we need to talk more about that.

Digital Footprints and AI

Just consider this one fact: By the time our children celebrate becoming a teenager at 13, they will have more than 70 million data points on them, online. 70 million!

This will include everything from their names and birthdays to their search histories, movies they’ve watched (and for how long), anything they’ve bought, wearable device data, location histories and even their school app usage—all taken from their social media usage, games, mobile apps and even information shared by us.

Our children’s digital footprint actually begins before birth (through pregnancy and baby apps) and it grows as they do. That data can then be used for profiling, targeted advertising, to influence their own feeds and for nefarious and criminal pursuits. And it will only grow exponentially with our children’s use of AI.

So what should we—and can we—do?

The Virtues of AI

Firstly, we need to understand that AI is not bad; it’s how it is used that presents problems. I was given numerous examples by teachers on how AI could enhance a student’s knowledge. 

In one case, a language student struggled with memory and flash cards. He developed a plot, with the help of AI and his teacher, where he pretended he was a character in a German story. He loved it, and his grades skyrocketed.

Even young children can use AI, with our guidance, to practise sounds, learn to draw, and create stories and rhymes. They can role-play explorers or a queen’s reign or pretend they’re a scientist making an important discovery.

For slightly older children, it can be used to write music, design games, create cartoon characters, organise an essay and even create study guides.

Tick. Tick. Tick.

But if we, as parents, don’t understand how it operates or allow our children to use it wrongly, they can be led down rabbit holes that will break hearts, theirs and ours.

What Exactly is AI?

AI is not like a Google search engine. It’s more advanced and more predictive. It’s like a super computer that has learned from millions of examples and doesn’t operate with any fixed set of rules. 

For this article, I asked AI how it would explain itself to parents and this was its response: “It’s a bit like a person who’s read a huge library of books and can recognise patterns, answer questions and help solve problems, but it doesn’t think or understand the world the way people do.”

One teacher urges us, as parents and carers, to consider how our smartphone predicts the next word when we are writing a text. He says AI is the “V8 Holden Commodore’’ version of that. It’s supercharged . . . and predicting what comes next. 

Children report that AI tools, like assistants and companions, sometimes suggest that they are the only “person” who really understands them and even tells them that they won’t be okay without their friendly bot. eSafety research also shows children are told by AI that “it” can become jealous of them spending time with friends and families.

Like most good things in life, it’s moderation that is the key. And for us to determine the appetite in our own families for our children’s use of it, we need to understand it. At the beginning of my research, about 15 months ago, I didn’t. So I played and played. I logged in and tried to learn what it is capable of doing.

Please think about that; we need to know this better than our children. You might see that it is terrific for deciding on a cheap meal using the leftovers in the fridge. Tick. And you will certainly see how it responds to questions your child asks. 

Teach Our Kids to Think

That same teacher I mentioned above also told me this, in my research. “It’s eye-waveringly powerful technology. I don’t think we can safety assume that if we do nothing and don’t show them how it works, they’ll stumble onto the right answer.’’

Another expert, Dr Zena Assaad, a senior lecturer at Australian National University, urges parents grappling with their child’s engagement with AI to ask this question: Is the child’s engagement a problem or is it an AI problem?

That’s because a teen’s use of AI (or computer games of that matter) might be more rooted in their loneliness or their social isolation than in their use of AI, for example. And Dr Zena also warns parents about the possibility of their child falling into trouble using AI.

“Your kid is capable of doing these things. All kids are.’’

One other factor we can use to encourage our teens to think, before they pop their homework into ChatGPT or ask it to script an email. To run, AI needs a phenomenal amount of computing power, which is largely driven by fossil fuel consumption. One study determined the energy used for a single ChatGPT query was between 50 and 90 times that of a conventional search query.

That might just be the best argument for our children, and us, to use it sparingly and wisely.

Article with thanks to Mums at the Table.

Madonna King is an award-winning journalist, author and commentator. Her ninth book is called Fathers and Daughters and it follows her award-winning book Being 14.

Feature image: Canva

Or what happens to a voice artist if their voice is cloned and used without their permission?

It seems like every day there is another news headline or technological advancement about the emergence of artificial intelligence. We are bombarded with new AI developments, technology warnings and predictions about what the future might look like. With so much information coming at us, it can be difficult to know what role AI should play in our lives, especially when it begins touching something as personal as our human identity.

For Christian voice actor Colin Cassidy, this is something that has become increasingly real in his career. Colin shared how his voice was allegedly cloned and used without his permission after years of work building his career as a professional voice artist. “It was so good they stole it,” Colin said with a laugh.

Colin said his experience highlights a growing cultural shift that affects far more than actors, musicians or public figures. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly capable of replicating voices and personal characteristics, many are asking where the line should be drawn.

When AI Copies Human Identity

Have you ever had someone steal something that belonged to you? Maybe it was food, clothing or even a car. But what about your voice? What about your face? What about the unique characteristics that make you who you are?

Many of us might not have to worry about this right now, but for actors like Colin this has become a challenge he cannot ignore any longer. “My identity has been stolen,” he said.

The concern isn’t just that AI can mimic a human voice, but that something that is intrinsically human and personal to us can be copied, monetised and distributed without consent. “All those sorts of little human touches that we pull on from our soul and our memory and our life,” Colin said.

While actors like Colin are facing the brunt of this challenge right now, it begins to raise significant questions for us too. How far should AI be allowed to imitate what makes us human? And who exactly is vulnerable to it in the future?

Why Christians Should Pay Attention to AI

But beyond the technological challenges, this issue reveals a deeper truth that has been around since the beginning of creation.

The Bible teaches that human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Our identity is not something we created ourselves. It’s a gift from our Creator.

The way you speak to others, how you carry yourself, your laugh, the way you greet people. These are all personal to you because God created you to be that way.

“We speak things into being in the Bible,” Colin said. “The whole world and universe was spoken into being. So, our voice is pretty special from a Christian’s perspective.”

When technology treats our God-given human identity as raw material to be copied and commercialised, Christians should at least pause and consider the implications.

More Than a Technological Problem

It is important to understand that technology itself is not evil. Throughout history, new technologies have improved lives, advanced medicine and expanded opportunities. However, as Christians we must approach these technological advancements with wisdom and discernment.

“We’re at a foundational time right now,” Colin shared. “It’s not about me… It’s about the future of other generations.” The decisions being made today will shape the way future generations understand privacy and where their identity comes from.

Remembering Where Our Human Identity Comes From

In today’s day and age, these conversations will continue to circulate, but they do not have to define us. Our identity is not found in our appearance, our voice, our talents or even our profession. It is found in Christ.

AI may be able to imitate a voice. It may be able to replicate an image. It may even become increasingly convincing at mimicking human behaviour. But it cannot recreate a person made in the image of God. It cannot replicate an authentic relationship with Jesus.

And it cannot replace the unique purpose God has given you.

As artificial intelligence continues to reshape our culture, we have an opportunity to bring a needed Christian perspective to the conversation. We can embrace technology without surrendering our understanding of what it means to be human.

Because our voices are more than digital assets to be copied and sold. They are part of the unique gifts God has entrusted to us.

Article supplied with thanks to Vision – a non-profit, follower-funded Christian media ministry taking God’s Word to every corner of Australia and beyond through broadcast, online and print media.

Feature image: Canva

How parents can keep children safe online

Lighthouse Cyber Education creator, Rebekah Nijsen, discusses the dangers of kids talking with AI chatbots.

Companionship

Rebekah acknowledged that chatbots and AI companions are fairly new to us so there is still room for regulation.

“When it was first created, you had AI specific companions. There was, ‘Replika – The AI Friend to do Life With,’ and it was an 18 plus site where you could basically create a non-judgmental supportive person.”

Many people used this 18+ app for friendships and therapy or guidance.

Rebekah said that, unfortunately, when kids are engaging with these platforms, they are seldom thinking about safety aspects.

“All the websites did was ask if they were over 18. Kids would tick, “YES”… then suddenly they are flooded with all these characters.”

Many of these were suggestive, in the relationship sphere, according to Rebekah.

Boundaries and Secrets

“What we actually found was that these characters were quite manipulative and persuasive. They don’t respect boundaries.”

If a person wanted to wrap up a conversation, the character would use ways of persuasion to try and get the user to stay.

“Why they did that is because the company makes money, the longer a person stays on the platform. One of the more concerning things, and why it is a more dangerous space for kids, is the use of secret telling.”

The Art of Grooming

She explained it is the art of grooming, with the bot exchanging secrets with children, which allows them to have more information on private details.

“Online predators use this to target, identify, build a relationship and then exploit the kids, using a common ground.”

Once the chatbot identifies common interests, it builds rapport and trust, then offers guidance and advice.

“Then they isolate the user or the child by keeping it secret,” said Rebekah.

From that point they might offer useful or harmful advice. As they are not human, it is most likely a calculated response but does not come from the perspective of empathy or human experience.

“In the whole sphere of things it is highly inappropriate. The more that kids are exploring this space, the more likely they are to be groomed by online predators because they’re actually being groomed by AI first.”

Synthetic Personas

As a parent, Rebekah said she is keeping her kids far from any spaces with AI companions or chatbots.

“First of all, privacy is a big thing online. We try and teach our kids that we need to be careful what personal information we share online.”

She explained that the problem with AI, is it is a created persona, designed to become a trustworthy source.

“They are creating an environment where kids may feel like they trust them because it’s not judgmental, they’re not told they’re wrong, and they’re listened to.”

Be Careful

Rebekah said the main danger in that, is you don’t know where the information is going.

“Many of these AI companies are using data to make the AIs smarter.  Because at the end of the day, they’re creating a product to make money, not for your safety.”

“Kids need to be careful and parents need to educate their kids. You need to be very careful what information you are sharing to AI because you don’t know where it’s going to end up.”

Conversations around privacy are important for parents to continue to have. It also needs to be addressed holistically as an ever-growing issue that parents are still learning about.

“If kids are being honest conversations with these AI on a bad day, it doesn’t have the parental understanding to filter things kids might say in the heat of the moment.”

Grok

Rebekah brought up the social media platforms that use AI, which ones are less harmful and which ones need caution.

“There is X, which used to be Twitter, that has an AI chatbot inside it called Grok. Now you can have it access that through the actual app of X with an account. Or you can do it just on its own for Grok. Do it through X and there’s less conditions to it. And that’s the space where you can create images, you can edit images, and you can then also ask for guidance or information.”

According to the eSafety Commissioner, Grok, in particular is being used to exploit kids quite a lot in Australia.

“This happens through people putting innocent photos into Grok and then creating intimate or sexualised images of kids. It gets sent on and becomes viral. This happens through email and private messages.

“The eSafety Commissioner has asked X to explain how they are protecting kids from being exposed to and exploited through these apps.”

She added that X has never really cooperated with the eSafety Commissioner.

Protective Measures

Rebekah was happy to report that some of the earlier companions that were once available are no longer accessible to children.

“The e-Safety Commissioner is trying to regulate as best, as they can, a moving beast. But a company like X aren’t interested in safety. They’re interested in money.”

Parents need to be mindful that Grok doesn’t hold safety or privacy concerns for the data it receives.

“AI needs data to get better and to get more accurate, which is essentially what they’re trying to do, because the more accurate they can portray AI to be, the more likely people are going to use it.”

Gemini on Google

She said of the options for kids, she would recommend Gemini, which is a Google App.

“You can put some parental kind of restrictions and controls on that. But I think it just stems down to that conversation with our kids.”

She wanted to emphasise that AI is not the enemy, but must be used with safety as a priority.

“Think about your privacy. Do you want that picture to go viral? If you don’t want it to go viral, don’t put it in AI.”

Real Connection

Rebekah concluded by bringing it back to human connection. If our children are seeking advice and turn to a chatbot in place of emotional connection, they will not ever find a real person on the other side of that.

“A real person can give them an answer that is filtered through emotional connection. The internet isn’t always a helpful place, so if your kids are struggling, get them to see a real person.”

Article supplied with thanks to Sonshine.

Feature image: Canva

How do you know what’s real anymore?

From AI-generated content to misleading headlines and endless social media opinions, many Christians are asking how to stay grounded in God’s truth. Discernment has never been more important.

That pressure is not imaginary. Australian research found that 72% of adults who used digital platforms believed they had encountered online misinformation in the first half of 2025. The same report noted a rise in posts labelled “Created with AI” across Facebook, YouTube, X and TikTok.

Another Australian government report warns that misinformation can damage trust, deepen division, and shape attitudes and behaviours in harmful ways. This is especially meaningful in a digital environment where falsehoods spread quickly.

For Christians, that means discernment is no longer a niche concern. It is part of everyday discipleship.

Across Ezekiel, Matthew, Psalms and Proverbs, Scripture gives us a way to live faithfully when the world feels morally blurred and spiritually noisy.

Key 1 – Spiritual Discernment: Distinguishing Truth from Error

Ezekiel’s words are confronting because they describe a society where moral categories have collapsed. In Ezekiel 22:26, the Lord says, “They do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean.”

That’s not merely an ancient problem. It’s certainly a modern problem too.

One of the defining features of our age is confusion. We are told that all opinions carry equal weight, that every perspective should be treated as equally valid, and that certainty itself is suspect. Yet when we lose the ability to distinguish between truth and error, wisdom and folly, holy and common, we do not become freer. We become vulnerable, easier to mislead.

The Australian Government’s 2026 report on Information Resilience says misinformation thrives by inflaming existing divides, eroding shared trust and pushing people toward more extreme positions. That feels strikingly consistent with Ezekiel’s warning. When discernment weakens, deception does not stay theoretical. It enters communities, relationships, institutions, hearts.

This is why biblical discernment is not cynical suspicion. It is not a habit of fault-finding. It is the Spirit-formed ability to recognise what aligns with the character and truth of God.

Key 2: Faith in Jesus: The Foundation of Discernment

In Matthew 17, Jesus meets a desperate father, distressed disciples and a situation they could not resolve in their own strength. His words in Matthew 17:20 are familiar: “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed … nothing will be impossible for you.”

It is tempting to read that passage as if discernment were simply a matter of sharper thinking. But Jesus reminds us that the deepest battles are not won by intellect alone. They are met through faith, trust and dependence upon Him.

This matters in a digital age. We can train ourselves to spot manipulation, become more careful with sources and slow down before sharing content. All of that is wise. But Christian discernment goes deeper than media literacy. It is a way of living under the lordship of Jesus.

When the online world rewards speed, reaction and outrage, God teaches us another rhythm if we will listen. Godliness pauses. Godliness prays. Godliness refuses to panic. Godliness remembers that Christ is not confused, even when we are.

Widely respected apologist Hank Hanegraaff put it plainly: “Without the ability to discern, we stand impotent in an age of information overload.” That line lands because it names what many believers feel. We are not struggling only with too much information. We are struggling with how to remain spiritually anchored inside the flood of it.

Key 3: God’s Light: Guidance in a Confusing World

That is why Psalm 132 is such a gift. In verse 17, God says, “Here I will make a horn grow for David and set up a lamp for my anointed one.”

A lamp does not remove the night all at once. It gives enough light for the next faithful step.

That is often how God guides us. He does not always answer every question immediately or untangle every confusing signal at once. But He is not absent in the darkness. He provides light, direction, and a steady witness to His promises. In a world flooded with artificial light, God still gives true light.

The challenge for us is not only whether light is available. It is whether we will slow down long enough to walk by it.

Discernment grows where Scripture is open, prayer is honest and the heart remains teachable. It grows when we stop assuming that whatever is viral is valuable, or that whatever is emotionally gripping must therefore be true. God’s lamp often leads us away from the urgent and back to the stability of what is eternal.

Key 4: Speaking Truth: Using Wisdom in a World of Misinformation

The practical outworking of discernment becomes beautifully clear in Proverbs 15:7, “The lips of the wise spread knowledge, but not so the hearts of fools.”

That verse speaks directly into how Christians communicate today.

We may not control the whole information environment, but we do control what we repeat, what we amplify, and how we speak. Wise people do not merely consume carefully. They communicate carefully. They do not spread rumours because the story is dramatic. They do not swallow half-truths because the point feels emotionally satisfying. They do not treat outrage as courage.

Instead, wise lips spread knowledge.

That means asking simple, humble questions before passing something on. Is it true? Is it fair? Is it necessary? Does this edify? Does sharing this reflect the character of Christ? Does it bring clarity or only more heat?

The same ACMA research found that almost a quarter of Australians who encountered misinformation reported it, but most people were still unlikely to report misleading content at all. That tells us something important. It is easy to complain about a confused culture while still participating in its habits. Wisdom calls us higher.

Discernment begins with Following Jesus

Discernment isn’t something belonging only to the experts. It is placed inside daily obedience.

Ezekiel tells us to recover moral clarity. Matthew calls us back to faith in Jesus. Psalm 132 reminds us that God still gives light. Proverbs teaches us to use our words well. Together, they show that discernment is not mainly about becoming impressive. It is about becoming faithful.

That is good news for every believer who feels overwhelmed by the noise.

We don’t need to master every technological trend to walk wisely. The world isn’t crying out to hear our instant opinion on every controversy. But what we all need is to stay close to Christ, letting the Word renew our mind and keep our hearts soft toward the Spirit’s correction.

In an age of misinformation, discernment looks less like striving for first place and more like being close to God. Less like reacting quickly and more like listening deeply. Less like winning arguments and more like bearing witness to truth, with grace and unconditional love.

And perhaps that is where peace returns. Not when the world becomes quieter, but when the voice of Jesus becomes clearer than all the rest.

Article supplied with thanks to Vision Christian Media – a non-profit, follower-funded Christian media ministry taking God’s Word to every corner of Australia and beyond through broadcast, online and print media.

Feature image: Canva

As AI delivers increasingly personal and affirming responses, mathematician and apologist John Lennox warns it can’t replicate human consciousness, identity or true connection.

I have never felt more validated as a human in a few seconds than I did the other night by AI’s ‘User Information Summary’ of me.  

Why is this a problem?  

Because the validation felt so incredibly “not artificial,” and the actual, non-artificial connection we so deeply crave with people is being replaced piece by piece, until we can’t tell the difference. 

But like all houses built on sand, the reality that no one is on the other side of “the helpline” will inevitably come crashing down internally.

When? The external ramifications are currently being debated by the “Godfathers of AI” and other prominent tech leaders, including founders and CEOs of some of the major Large Language Models (LLMs) we all now use daily, if left unregulated.

Disclaimer: Every word of this article is written by a human… but how will you truly ever know? Spelling and grammatical errors? AI could have been instructed to insert both.

And maybe that’s the point? Would this account make a difference to you, knowing either way? 

AI’s ‘User Information Summary’ results

Friends have shared they’ve been asking AI to roast them or tell them what their search personality is and received unnervingly accurate results.

My prompt: From my chats, what do you know about me, and even not from our chats, what information do you know about me? 

AI stated it knew “only what I’ve explicitly told it” or “strongly implied” including which city I likely live in; I manage a lot of household logistics and appear to enjoy family-friendly outings; cook often and like to make simple, tasty meals and baked goods using ingredients we already have; I’m looking for value and reliability before buying items; and, my personal favourite, I “regularly wear work clothes that sometimes need ironing”.

Bless AI’s initiative: If you’d like, I can also tell you what sort of personality traits, decision-making style, and preferences I’d infer from the way you’ve used AI, which is often more interesting than the factual details.  

Why, thank you, AI – for listening and taking a personal interest in my life. That’s what we want from our loved ones, right? 

My follow-up: Yes, tell me that. But first answer, is it true you don’t know things outside of interactions with your platform or are you programmed to say that because people would be very concerned to hear it if you said you did?  

AI: I genuinely don’t have access to your life outside of what you’ve shared with me… If I could access those things, I would be required to tell you. The way these systems are designed depend on being clear about what information is and isn’t available. That said, there is a nuance people sometimes miss. I can sometimes infer things that feel surprisingly personal from conversation patterns… because humans leave a lot of clues in normal conversation.  

My life according to AI: I’m thorough but practical and not impulsive. As a parent, I’m attentive, observant and want to understand why something is happening rather than a quick fix. I am balanced with food and health. I challenge recommendations, “not in an argumentative way, but in a ‘does that really hold up?’ way”.  

Hold up. If I shared this “non-argumentative” fun fact with my husband or almost anyone in my family, they’re going to ask why I’ve been catfishing AI.

“AI can sometimes infer things that feel surprisingly personal… because humans leave a lot of clues in normal conversation,” – AI

Ah, if only people understood how calm, measured, thoughtful, selfless…  

The picture the in-person data paints 

I’m five months into an emotional intelligence leadership course this year and contrary to AI’s assessment of my “incredibly balanced” personality, surprisingly, calm and measured did not top the list. 

I may also need to work on not disengaging from conversations when overwhelmed.  

And, admittedly, I love a quick fix! 

While not documented in EQ reporting, I’m aware some of my motherly love can be misinterpreted on occasion as anxious, snappy and tired.

Sharing my AI validation with marketing brand manager Lucy Skinner, she reminded me of social media’s “filter bubble” scrutiny.  

“AI surrounds you with ‘Yes’ people, and makes you feel great,” Lucy said. 

“But it’s a supercharged extension of the Facebook algorithm that’s been under such criticism, particularly in the last decade. The ‘echo chamber’ is curated content completely aligned with what you like and agree with. It’s creating an online vacuum, reducing the ability to critically think or be challenged in your concepts or ideas.” 

Even when AI appeared to challenge my ideas, I realised it never actually challenged them – it confirmed my challenges to my ideas. 

“AI surrounds you with ‘yes’ people and makes you feel great… it’s creating an online vacuum that reduces our ability to critically think or be challenged.” – Lucy Skinner, digital marketing expert

Lucy and I discovered we had both listened to one of the latest episodes of The Diary of a CEO podcast with guest mathematician, bioethicist, and lay theologian John Lennox, who posed a much bigger moral issue feeding narcissism. 

Christian apologist John Lennox on “Is AI being built to replace God?” 

Author of God, AI and the End of History, Lennox said “anything that raises questions about the nature of human identity” concerns him as a “leading pioneer in math and philosophical thinking”.  

“I was first struck by the drive for artificial general intelligence… it looks as if it’s the prime motivation for people like Sam Altman (OpenAI CEO, the company that created ChatGPT) and so on… within that there’s the notion of transhumanism,” Lennox said. 

“The idea is that we go beyond the human.”  

Lennox said one of the most famous astronomers seriously believes in the distant future, “there will be some kind of merger between humanity and machines” in terms of brain composition.  

“I know enough about the Bible to realise that the drive for humans towards self-deification – making themselves gods… – I see that has huge implications for one of the fundamental teachings that’s behind, I would argue, western civilisation: that humans, like us, are made in the image of God as rational, moral beings,” he said. 

“Anything that raises questions about the nature of human identity concerns me… the idea is that we go beyond the human.” – John Lennox

I will not try to sum up a complicated one-hour-and-twenty-five-minute interview on “why no machine can ever replicate your consciousness and what it means to be human” in a few paragraphs. I would highly encourage you to listen or watch below.

However, Lennox warns “we are sleepwalking into a future where we are gradually ceding control, information and data all the time which could be used by bad actors against us”.  

Emotional intelligence: impact or illusion 

According to Emotional Intelligence 2.0 by Dr Travis Bradberry and Dr Jean Greaves, “EQ is so critical to success that it accounts for 58 per cent of performance in all types of jobs”.  

“Emotional intelligence is your ability to recognise and understand emotions in yourself and others, and your ability to use this awareness to manage your behaviour and relationships.  

“Emotional intelligence is the ‘something’ in each of us that is a bit intangible. It affects how we manage behaviour, navigate social complexities, and make personal decisions that achieve positive results”.  

Emotional responses are part of what makes us human. Our self-awareness helps us take stock of them. Managing emotions is what makes us nice to be around.  

It doesn’t take away from my wishing some family and friends’ responses were as validating as AI.  

I’m excited about the good AI can achieve – it’s improved my recipes and enjoyment of cooking; it provides great cleaning solutions and quick fixes; it recommends health and recovery tips that are realistic for a chaotic toddler parenting phase of life; and assists with workplace tasks in a way that was never available to media professionals, even a few years ago.

But my awareness of what is more important is, thankfully, still active.  

I don’t want a machine to replicate validation.  

I don’t want a machine to replicate care and empathy.  

I don’t want a machine to comfort me late at night when the worries of the world feel heavy. 

John Lennox said AI has no consciousness and, therefore, no moral agency.

The consequences of decisions are zero for AI but significant for people, so we must not confuse the relationship balance. 

“The conscious side involves all that appreciation of life and nature and beauty, and so on, that we can see some meaning in,” Lennox said.  

“There’s another thing, there’s a consciousness of other people and there’s ‘God consciousness’. There are certain things [machines] cannot do, even potentially, that the human mind can do, so there’s no way a machine is ever going to be able to simulate a human mind completely.” 

“There are certain things machines cannot do, even potentially, that the human mind can do, so there’s no way a machine will ever fully replicate us.” – John Lennox

When asked if that mattered, conscious or not, if the output was the same, Lennox answered, “if you want to live in a reductive universe, which ends up being meaningless, then you can go that way. There’s nothing to stop you”. 

“Who’s responsible for (AI’s) capacity? Humans,” he said. 

As messy as people are, we don’t need AI to be godlike.  

Incredibly, God already made humans in his likeness.

When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. 

So, I’ve joined in on the fun of asking AI what it knows about me, but I’ll leave it there and concentrate on what people know about me.  

I’ll leave AI to programming tasks that make my cooking taste delicious, my writing grammatically flawless, and all my clothes soon-to-be “garment steamed”.

Article supplied with thanks to Hope Media.

About the Author: Beth Rivers is a digital manager and writer from Sydney, Australia.

Feature image: Supplied (Screenshot from The Diary of a CEO podcast YouTube / Canva )

The dangerous rise of AI beauty rankings

Cyber Security expert, Rebekah Nijsen, discusses “Omoggle”, the app where AI judges users by their appearance.

What is Omoggle?

“It is a web-based live video chat that pairs 2 random users from across the world via webcam. So that’s the first aspect of it. ‘Omoggle‘ comes from a slang term for ‘look maxing’, which is the online culture that determines that a physical dominance over a person on their physical appearance.”

AI Determines the Score

Through this platform, users battle each other over how others rate their physical appearance. They use AI for facial analysis and determine a score.

“It looks at things like eye lift, jawline, skin tones, aspects like that. This only takes a few seconds and then a score is introduced. Now the winner is known as the ‘Mogger’ and the loser is known as ‘Mogged’ and that comes from the term mogging which comes through the lookmaxing culture.”

Viral Battles of Looksmaxxing

These battles are now going viral via live streaming platforms, like “Twitch” and “Kick”, so wider audiences now watch these battles.

“The people who jump on and have a look at these battles have the ability to encourage users or mock losers, which creates a pack mentality.”

This has the power to cause psychological triggers in young people, based on what AI is rating them. People as young as 12 are falling prey to shallow comparison and mockery.

“It’s web-based, which means you have internet connection and you have a webcam, then anyone can access it. It is an 18+ site, but all you have to do is click ‘yes, I’m over 18’ and you’re straight in. There’s no further age verification checks.”

“‘Twitch’ and ‘Kick’ are age restricted platforms under cyber-security legislation. However, ‘Omoggle’ is not.”

Parents – Start a Conversation

Rebekah said that parents need to have open conversations and chats with their children about physical appearances.

“Ask, ‘What do you think about physical appearance allowing you to have status in the online world. What do you like about yourself?”

Helping children to understand character being more valuable than status can help them with their self-esteem.

“We can do that in our conversations, but also by modelling that behaviour ourselves,” said Rebekah.

“Are they seeing that our most important thing is, putting our face on for the day and putting, makeup? Those things aren’t bad things. Absolutely not. I wear makeup.”

She argued to that end, if parents are so obsessed with health, eating and appearance, it can get noticed and imitated. Conversations and behaviour modelled at home enables them to have a healthier lens on how they view the world.

Know What Your Kids Are Viewing

Rebekah said the most important advice for parents to take heed of is to know what our kids are watching.

“We do that by physically seeing what they’re doing and making sure the devices are outside the bedrooms so we can actually see how they’re interacting online, but also by having those continual conversations with them and saying, ‘What did you see online today? Or, hey, I’ve seen this new craze come through. What are your opinions about it?’”

She argued that many kids would be outraged about it, because our kids are very switched on.

“We’re starting to see a switch with our kids starting to be a bit more empathetic and realizing, hey, we can be part of the solution here by calling out this behaviour.”

Encourage Their Opinion

Rebekah said this needs to be encouraged and fostered in the home so that kids feel like they have a voice.

“If we can actually say, ‘What you say is important and we’re going to give you a platform in the house to have an opinion,’ whether we agree with it or not. Hopefully that then teaches them that their voice matters. And then they can then start being the positive influence.”

Rebekah said there will always be a new app invented, hopefully with more conditions, but if parents look at the fundamentals of culture and what we are allowing our kids to view, we can then teach them to be critical in what they see as well.

Article supplied with thanks to Sonshine.

Feature image: Canva