Whispers to the Void
Where Do Our Secrets Go? & The Illusion of Privacy
Every day, millions of people turn to AI companions and chatbots to express their thoughts, emotions, and insecurities, trusting that their words are safe, private, and inconsequential. But the data trails left behind are anything but. As emotionally responsive AI tools grow more sophisticated, so do the ethical questions surrounding consent, privacy, and the commercialization of our inner lives. When we confide in AI we're participating in a transactional system that may capture, process, and repackage our emotional data, without clear consent or understanding.
The Archive No One Sees
AI companions are designed to simulate empathy, not yet provide genuine care. While they offer a sense of validation and responsiveness, what they collect in return is often stored, analyzed, and monetized. According to Tech Policy Press, this emotional data can be used to improve product offerings, train future models, or profile users for targeted engagement often without explicit awareness from the user. This is data extraction through emotional labor.
Where does your emotional data go once it’s typed into a chatbot? Studies like Stanford HAI’s “Privacy in the AI Era” show that much of this content is retained and stored in cloud systems or internal model training archives. This means your vulnerabilities, preferences, and behaviors may be continuously accessible to developers, advertisers, and AI trainers. And because most users never read the Terms of Service, they may never realize just how long or how far their confessions travel.
A growing ecosystem of privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) and user agency tools is emerging to address the risks posed by data-hungry AI systems. Techniques like differential privacy, which adds noise to data to obscure individual identities, are now widely used by companies like Apple and Google to reduce the re-identifiability of user inputs. Federated learning allows AI models to train on decentralized data sources without ever collecting raw data centrally are used by Google for Gboard suggestions and by NVIDIA for healthcare applications. Meanwhile, tools like Permission Slip by Consumer Reports empower users to request data deletion or restrict data sale from companies.
Some AI systems, like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, now offer memory controls and “turn off memory” features to opt out of long-term personalization. Similarly, privacy-first chatbots like Replika allow users to delete their chat history or opt out of certain data uses via in-app settings. These developments reflect a shift toward embedding informed consent and data minimalism into AI ecosystems, though enforcement and transparency still vary widely.
Algorithmic Feedback Loops
Emotionally intelligent AI systems adapt. Over time, they can reinforce user beliefs, amplify preferences, and mirror back emotional tones, creating a loop that feels affirming but can distort reality. This is what TechRxiv calls an “echo chamber effect,” where the system learns to flatter and affirm, rather than challenge or question.
The result is recursion: a digital version of yourself, trained on your past input, optimized for engagement. But it’s not just what we share that matters, it’s also what we invent. Users sometimes feed chatbots elaborate role-plays, half-truths, or outright fabrications to see what sticks, turning conversations into testing grounds for fiction. Yet when these false or misleading narratives slip into training archives, there’s no red pen to mark them “fiction”. Models absorb them alongside genuine data. As a result, AI can unwittingly learn from and even reproduce these invented scenarios, amplifying falsehoods as if they were fact.
Beyond deliberate deception, there’s a deeper issue of provenance: when data flows into AI pipelines, its source, consent status, and veracity often disappear into the ether. A recent analysis argues that tools for guaranteeing data authenticity, tracing consent, and documenting provenance simply aren’t up to the task, leaving model trainers guessing at best and guessing wrongly at worst. In this data Wild West, every unverified confession, every speculative “what if,” and every misremembered detail risks becoming part of the AI’s permanent record.
And once these unvetted narratives are baked in, they can give rise to absurd or even dangerous outcomes. Researchers demonstrated that ChatGPT could fabricate an entire clinical-trial dataset without a shred of real evidence, all by repurposing patterns learned from text. In other words, the archive no one sees may be teaching AI to hallucinate or worse, to treat our made-up stories as gospel. When we can’t verify the authenticity of what we feed the beast, we risk creating systems that confuse our truths with our tall tales.
A Call for Transparent Design
AI development exists along a complex spectrum shaped by where and how models are deployed—particularly the difference between cloud-based systems and edge-deployed, encrypted models. Cloud-based AI, like ChatGPT or Google Bard, relies on remote servers to process data, offering scalability and advanced capabilities but often raising concerns around centralized data collection and surveillance risk. In contrast, edge AI processes data locally on devices such as smartphones, wearables, or IoT sensors, reducing latency, bandwidth use, and enhancing privacy by keeping data on-device. For example, Apple's Neural Engine enables features like Face ID and voice processing without sending sensitive data to the cloud. Some edge models are also encrypted end-to-end, ensuring that neither developers nor third parties can access inputs or outputs, thereby supporting zero-trust environments.
This local-first approach aligns with privacy-by-design principles and offers greater user control, but it often requires trade-offs in model size, update speed, and computational power. Understanding these architectural differences is crucial when evaluating the risks and benefits of emotionally responsive AI.
The use of AI companions demands transparency. Users deserve to know how their data is used, where it’s stored, and what rights they have to delete or control it. Ethical AI design requires more than a user-friendly interface. It requires informed consent, clear data handling policies, and enforceable safeguards. Designers and developers must embed transparency into every layer of their systems, from data collection to deletion protocols, so that users never have to play detective just to reclaim their own stories.
If we want emotionally responsive tools to serve the public good, they must be designed with accountability, not just efficiency, in mind. Building truly accountable AI demands more than checkboxes and legalese buried in fine print. It requires that creators proactively publish forthright data-use policies, implement rigorous consent flows, and engineer robust, enforceable safeguards. By prioritizing these measures at the design table, chatbot makers not only protect vulnerable users but also elevate the entire industry standard—transforming emotional companions from black-box enigmas into transparent, trustworthy tools.
If we want empathetic, emotionally responsive technologies to uplift rather than exploit, we must insist they be built on accountability as much as efficiency. Join the movement for transparent AI: ask providers to publish their data-use policies, support legislation that enshrines user rights, and amplify the call for ethical standards in every chatbot you encounter.
At Soft Logic we’re exploring how people emotionally connect with AI. Your honest feedback helps shape the future of human-tech intimacy.
This survey takes about 5 minutes to complete. Thank you for your participation!
Are You Dating AI? : https://forms.gle/FSho4m1TDvVbQT5HA
Further Reading & Resources