Prevalence of Security and Privacy Risk-Inducing Usage of AI-based Conversational Agents

Abstract

Recent improvement gains in large language models (LLMs) have lead to everyday usage of AI-based Conversational Agents (CAs). At the same time, LLMs are vulnerable to an array of threats, including jailbreaks and, for example, causing remote code execution when fed specific inputs. As a result, users may unintentionally introduce risks, for example, by uploading malicious files or disclosing sensitive information. However, the extent to which such user behaviors occur and thus potentially facilitate exploits remains largely unclear. To shed light on this issue, we surveyed a representative sample of 3,270 UK adults in 2024 using Prolific. A third of these use CA services such as ChatGPT or Gemini at least once a week. Of these ``regular users'', up to a third exhibited behaviors that may enable attacks, and a fourth have tried jailbreaking (often out of understandable reasons such as curiosity, fun or information seeking). Half state that they sanitize data and most participants report not sharing sensitive data. However, few share very sensitive data such as passwords. The majority are unaware that their data can be used to train models and that they can opt-out. Our findings suggest that current academic threat models manifest in the wild, and mitigations or guidelines for the secure usage of CAs should be developed. In areas critical to security and privacy, CAs must be equipped with effective AI guardrails to prevent, for example, revealing sensitive information to curious employees. Vendors need to increase efforts to prevent the entry of sensitive data, and to create transparency with regard to data usage policies and settings.

--
Citations
Survey
Paper Only

Study specs

Representative survey conducted via Prolific platform targeting UK adults, focusing on usage behaviors of AI conversational agents.

Institution
IBM Research,ZHAW
Sample Size
N=3,270
Study Type
Survey Research
Year
2025
Human Data Platform
Prolific

Measured Outcomes

User behaviors related to security and privacy risks, data sanitization practices, attempts to jailbreak AI models, and awareness of data usage policies.

Peer Review & Critical Discussion

3 threads

Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort

DSJDr. Sarah J.
Verified PhD Candidate
12 replies

The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.

2 hours ago

Non-naive Participants Issue

MCM. Chen (OpenAI)
Data Scientist
8 replies

I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.

5 hours ago

RLHF Applicability to This Study Design

PRWProf. R. Williams
Verified Researcher
15 replies

The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.

1 day ago

Verify your expertise to join discussion

Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.