IT Pros ‘Extremely Worried’ About Shadow AI: Report By John P. Mello Jr. June 4, 2025 5:00 AM PT ADVERTISEMENT Enterprise IT Lead Generation Services Fuel Your Pipeline. Close More Deals. Our full-service marketing programs deliver sales-ready leads. 100% Satisfaction Guarantee! Learn more. Shadow AI — the use of AI tools under the radar of IT departments — has information technology directors and executives worried, according to a report released Tuesday. The report, based on a survey of 200 IT directors and executives at U.S. enterprise organizations of 1,000 employees or more, found nearly half the IT pros (46%) were “extremely worried” about shadow AI, and almost all of them (90%) were concerned about it from a privacy and security viewpoint. “As our survey found, shadow AI is resulting in palpable, concerning outcomes, with nearly 80% of IT leaders saying it has resulted in negative incidents such as sensitive data leakage to Gen AI tools, false or inaccurate results, and legal risks of using copyrighted information,” said Krishna Subramanian, co-founder of Campbell, Calif.-based Komprise, the unstructured data management company that produced the report. “Alarmingly, 13% say that shadow AI has caused financial or reputational harm to their organizations,” she told TechNewsWorld. Subramanian added that shadow AI poses a much greater problem than shadow IT, which primarily focuses on departmental power users purchasing cloud instances or SaaS tools without obtaining IT approval. “Now we’ve got an unlimited number of employees using tools like ChatGPT or Claude AI to get work done, but not understanding the potential risk they are putting their organizations at by inadvertently submitting company secrets or customer data into the chat prompt,” she explained. “The data risk is large and growing in still unforeseen ways because of the pace of AI development and adoption and the fact that there is a lot we don’t know about how AI works,” she continued. “It is becoming more humanistic all the time and capable of making decisions independently.” Shadow AI Introduces Security Blind Spots Shadow AI is the next step after shadow IT and is a growing risk, noted James McQuiggan, security awareness advocate at KnowBe4, a security awareness training provider in Clearwater, Fla. “Users use AI tools for content, images, or applications and to process sensitive data or company information without proper security checks,” he told TechNewsWorld. “Most organizations will have privacy, compliance, and data protection policies, and shadow AI introduces blind spots in the organization’s data loss prevention.” “The biggest risk with shadow AI is that the AI application has not passed through a security analysis as approved AI tools may have been,” explained Melissa Ruzzi, director of AI at AppOmni, a SaaS security management software company, in San Mateo, Calif. “Some AI applications may be training models using your data, may not adhere to relevant regulations that your company is required to follow, and may not even have the data storage security level you deem necessary to keep your data from being exposed,” she told TechNewsWorld. “Those risks are blind spots of potential security vulnerabilities in shadow AI.” Krishna Vishnubhotla, vice president of product strategy at Zimperium, a mobile security company based in Dallas, noted that shadow AI extends beyond unapproved applications and involves embedded AI components that can process and disseminate sensitive data in unpredictable ways. “Unlike traditional shadow IT, which may be limited to unauthorized software or hardware, shadow AI can run on employee mobile devices outside the organization’s perimeter and control,” he told TechNewsWorld. “This creates new security and compliance risks that are harder to track and mitigate.” Vishnubhotla added that the financial impact of shadow AI varies, but unauthorized AI tools can lead to significant regulatory fines, data breaches, and loss of intellectual property. “Depending on the scale of the agency and the sensitivity of the data exposed, the costs could range from millions to potentially billions in damages due to compliance violations, remediation efforts, and reputational harm,” he said. “Federal agencies handling vast amounts of sensitive or classified information, financial institutions, and health care organizations are particularly vulnerable,” he said. “These sectors collect and analyze vast amounts of high-value data, making AI tools attractive. But without proper vetting, these tools could be easily exploited.” Shadow AI Everywhere and Easy To Use Nicole Carignan, SVP for security and AI strategy at Darktrace, a global cybersecurity AI company, predicts an explosion of tools that utilize AI and generative AI within enterprises and on devices used by employees. “In addition to managing AI tools that are built in-house, security teams will see a surge in the volume of existing tools that have new AI features and capabilities embedded, as well as a rise in shadow AI,” she told TechNewsWorld. “If the surge remains unchecked, this raises serious questions and concerns about data loss prevention, as well as compliance concerns as new regulations start to take effect.” “That will drive an increasing need for AI asset discovery — the ability for companies to identify and track the use of AI systems throughout the enterprise,” she said. “It is imperative that CIOs and CISOs dig deep into new AI security solutions, asking comprehensive questions about data access and visibility.” Shadow AI has become so rampant because it is everywhere and easy to access through free tools, maintained Komprise’s Subramanian. “All you need is a web browser,” she said. “Enterprise users can inadvertently share company code snippets or corporate data when using these Gen AI tools, which could create data leakage.” “These tools are growing and changing exponentially,” she continued. “It’s really hard to keep up. As the IT leader, how do you track this and determine the risk? Managers might be looking the other way because their teams are getting more done. You may need fewer contractors and full-time employees. But I think the risk of the tools is not well understood.” “The low, or in some cases non-existent, learning curve associated with using Gen AI services has led to rapid adoption, regardless of prior experience with these services,” added Satyam Sinha, CEO and co-founder of Acuvity, a provider of runtime Gen AI security and governance solutions, in Sunnyvale, Calif. “Whereas shadow IT focused on addressing a specific challenge for particular employees or departments, shadow AI addresses multiple challenges for multiple employees and departments. Hence, the greater appeal,” he said. “The abundance and rapid development of Gen AI services also means employees can find the right solution [instantly]. Of course, all these traits have direct security implications.” Banning AI Tools Backfires To support innovation while minimizing the threat of shadow AI, enterprises must take a three-pronged approach, asserted Kris Bondi, CEO and co-founder of Mimoto, a threat detection and response company in San Francisco. They must educate employees on the dangers of unsupported, unmonitored AI tools, create company protocols for what is not acceptable use of unauthorized AI tools, and, most importantly, provide AI tools that are sanctioned. “Explaining why one tool is sanctioned and another isn’t greatly increases compliance,” she told TechNewsWorld. “It does not work for a company to have a zero-use mandate. In fact, this results in an increase in stealth use of shadow AI.” In the very near future, more and more applications will be leveraging AI in different forms, so the reality of shadow AI will be present more than ever, added AppOmni’s Ruzzi. “The best strategy here is employee training and AI usage monitoring,” she said. “It will become crucial to have in place a powerful SaaS security tool that can go beyond detecting direct AI usage of chatbots to detect AI usage connected to other applications,” she continued, “allowing for early discovery, proper risk assessment, and containment to minimize possible negative consequences.” “Shadow AI is just the beginning,” KnowBe4’s McQuiggan added. “As more teams use AI, the risks grow.” He recommended that companies start small, identify what’s being used, and build from there. They should also get legal, HR, and compliance involved. “Make AI governance part of your broader security program,” he said. “The sooner you start, the better you can manage what comes next.” John P. Mello Jr. has been an ECT News Network reporter since 2003. His areas of focus include cybersecurity, IT issues, privacy, e-commerce, social media, artificial intelligence, big data and consumer electronics. He has written and edited for numerous publications, including the Boston Business Journal, the Boston Phoenix, Megapixel.Net and Government Security News. Email John. Leave a Comment Click here to cancel reply. Please sign in to post or reply to a comment. New users create a free account. Related Stories More by John P. Mello Jr. view all More in IT Leadership

Facepalm: In the latest example of why we shouldn't blindly put our faith in online map services, German autobahns and highways were plunged into chaos when Google Maps incorrectly showed that vast sections of the roads were closed. The incident's timing was especially bad as it coincided with the start of a holiday break. German motorists likely felt disheartened at the sight of all the stop signs on Google Maps on Thursday. The Guardian reports that major roads in western, northern, south-western and central parts of the country were shown as closed. Even parts of Belgium and the Netherlands appeared to have ground to a halt. The situation was exacerbated by the incident taking place at the start of a four-day break for the Ascension holiday, when many Germans were travelling. It led to a huge number of Google Maps users heading for alternative routes to avoid the non-existent closures. Somewhat ironically, this caused huge jams and delays on these smaller roads. Drivers not relying on Google Maps – and any Google users who decided to check another service or the news – didn't have to deal with these problems. Apple Maps, Waze, and the traffic reports all showed that everything was moving freely. The major highways were likely quieter than usual as so many Google Maps users were avoiding them. The apparent mass closure of so many roads caused panic among those who believed Google Maps' warning. Some thought there had been a terrorist attack or state-sponsored hack, while others speculated about a natural disaster. // Related Stories When asked about the glitch, which lasted around two hours, Google said the company wouldn't comment on the specific case. It added that Google Maps draws information from three key sources: individual users, public sources such as transportation authorities, and a mix of third-party providers. Ars Technica contacted Google to ask about the cause of the problem. A spokesperson said the company "investigated a technical issue that temporarily showed inaccurate road closures on the map" and has "since removed them." With Google Maps drawing information from third parties, the issue could partly have been related to the German Automobile Club's warning that there may be heavy traffic at the start of the holiday. Google also added AI features to Maps recently, and we all know how reliable they can be. There have been plenty of other incidents in which Google Maps got things very wrong. Germany was cursing the service again earlier this month when it showed highway tunnels being closed in part of the country when they were open. In 2023, Google was sued by the family of a North Carolina man who drove his car off a collapsed bridge as he followed directions given by Google Maps. The case is ongoing. Masthead: Bhavik Nasit

Strava drama has become the name of the game in the fitness tracking world. I suppose when your favorite fitness app also includes a social media element, a little tension is inevitable. Add competitive leaderboards into the mix, and you've got a recipe for intrigue that would make reality TV producers salivate.If you're tuned into leaderboard controversies, you'll know that runners and cyclists are deeply divided on whether the platform is doing too much—or not nearly enough—to combat fake entries. If you ask me, when some users are deploying electric unicycles to dominate local climbing segments, that's evidence enough something needs to be done. And now Strava is doing something: The company has announced the launch of AI-enabled Leaderboard Integrity, a new tool intended to separate legitimate athletes from creative cheaters. How Strava is using AI to root out cheatersFor the uninitiated, the reason people cheat is usually to claim King of the Mountain (KOM) and Queen of the Mountain (QOM) titles—coveted crowns that represent the fastest times on specific segments. Peruse the Strava subreddit for a few minutes, and you'll be sure to see grievances about leaderboard cheaters. Strava's latest update is designed to identify and flag "irregular, improbable, or impossible" performance recorded on the platform. The system acts as a digital referee, capable of detecting when an impossibly fast e-bike ride has been mislabeled as a regular cycling effort, then politely prompting users to correct their entries.The technology goes beyond simple speed checks. Strava revealed in February that its machine learning system analyzes activities using 57 different factors, including speed patterns, elevation gains, and acceleration data, to determine when something doesn't add up. The result of this crackdown? Strava has already removed 4.45 million activities from its platform. The deleted activities generally fall into two main categories: entries uploaded with the wrong sport type (like labeling an e-bike ride as regular cycling) and activities recorded while in a vehicle. To be fair, the latter category likely includes everything from users forgetting to stop their tracking while driving home, to more deliberate attempts to game the system by recording car or train journeys as part of legitimate running segments.How Strava users are reactingThe fitness community's reaction to Strava's cheater detection has been characteristically split. Serious athletes and segment hunters generally applaud the stricter measures—after all, leaderboard integrity is what makes the app's competitive element at all meaningful. If the numbers are fraud, what's the point?However, some users worry about false positives—that is, legitimate exceptional performances getting flagged by overzealous algorithms. And the AI is overzealous: Some users have commented that their personal records are being deleted without any sort of prompt or ability to dispute the AI's findings. If you're a serious athlete, seeing your genuinely impressive times being questioned by an automated system that might not account for peak human performance is naturally going to rankle.Outside of leaderboard integrity, Strava's AI initiatives are generally overzealous and inaccurate. I'm not alone in noticing how absurd its new route generation can get. I'm talking routes with concentric loops, cutting through buildings, major roads instead of residential paths, and other issues that will make no sense to a real human moving through the world. Given the immense heat map data that we've all effectively donated to Strava, to be given such shoddy AI-generated routes is fairly bonkers, and it's hardly surprising that its cheat-detecting tools would also be less than precise.The bottom lineControversy aside, Strava's competitive features should be more about personal motivation than serious competition. If cheater detection is ruining your experience, I recommend some perspective. Try not to let it spoil what should be a fun, social fitness experience—especially given the AI tools don't (yet) seem accurate enough to reflect reality.But with 4.45 million activities already in the digital trash bin, Strava's message is clear: The days of easily gaming the leaderboards are over. Of course, as fitness tracking technology continues to evolve, so too will the methods people use to fool the system. Hopefully Strava stays one step ahead of creative rule-benders.

We may earn a commission from links on this page.Purchasing a full set of individual dumbbell pairs between five and 60 pounds can cost well over $1,500, not to mention how much space you'd have to dedicate to storing them. That's why I'm a huge fan of adjustable dumbbells like the REP QuickDraws or Nüobells, which I reviewed here and here, respectively. If you know you want to be able to up to 60 pounds at five-pound increments, effectively combining 30 weights into one compact set, then adjustables like the REP QuickDraws are how you can save significant money and space in your home gym equipment setup. But let's say your strength progresses beyond your adjustable dumbbells' capacity. First of all: Nice work. Secondly: What do you do now? I've seen users on Reddit directly asking "what's stopping me from adding more plates to keep going heavier?" Adding extra weight plates seems like a logical solution, as opposed to spending all that money on an entirely new set for just a few pounds beyond the recommended capacity. So, let's take a look at what is stopping you—and what's not. Here's what you should know about using add-on weights to your adjustable dumbbells, from what is officially considered unsafe to why it gets impractical even aside from that. How to add weight to your adjustable dumbbellsFirst off, not all adjustable dumbbells allow for this type of modification. Selector pin systems (like PowerBlocks) generally don't allow for unofficial weight additions due to their enclosed design. Dial systems (like my favorite, the Nüobells) have security features specifically preventing modifications outside the cradle. Then you have spin-lock dumbbells, like the QuickDraws, which allow for customization and additional weight outside the cradle. For this reason, I'll be speaking to the REP QuickDraws specifically, as opposed to Nüobells or Powerblocks.Still, adding weight beyond the manufacturer's specifications will almost certainly void your warranty. REP Fitness designed these dumbbells for specific weight ranges and cannot guarantee safety beyond those limits. I spoke with a REP representative (REP-resentative?) who informed me, "internal testing was not conducted beyond the 60 pound maximum, so REP cannot guarantee the safety of additional weight beyond that."Outside of your warranty, there are safety concerns. The handles, locking mechanisms, and materials are engineered for specific maximum loads. Exceeding these limits risks equipment failure and potential injury. Even if the dumbbells can technically handle the additional plates, the result might be bulky and awkward, affecting your form and increasing injury risk.All that being said, it still is entirely feasible to bend the rules and take your 60-pound dumbbells up to 70 pounds. Assuming you play it safe and only add a few plates to each side, here's what you should know:Only add compatible plates: The QuickDraw system uses standard plate dimensions that can be supplemented with additional compatible plates.Manual addition required: You'll need to add these plates manually outside the cradle system, as the selection mechanism only works within the advertised weight range. This pretty much negates the whole "quick draw" appeal.Secure them properly: Ensure the additional plates are secured with the locking mechanism to prevent dangerous slippage during exercises.Manual tracking required: The dial indicator becomes inaccurate once you exceed the designed range. You'll need to manually calculate and track the added weight.Can you (and should you) add more weight to REP QuickDraw Dumbbells?The short answer: Yes, technically you can add additional weight plates to REP QuickDraw dumbbells beyond their advertised maximum. The long answer: Just because something is possible doesn't mean you should make a habit of it. Sure, it's fully above-board to order add-on weights in five-pound increments (which, side-note, I love so much more than a 10-pound jump). However, going beyond 60 pounds isn't sanctioned by REP. For this reason, I naturally had my boyfriend test my DIY super-QuickDraws creation. In the image below, you can see how I manually added weights outside of the cradle. With the spin-locks, you can keep adding weights outside the cradle without any resistance. Just slide the weights on and flip the lock switch.I snapped a picture of it in its lopsided form, so you can see just how far outside the cradle the five-pound add-ons will go—and how precarious it starts to look right off the bat. Behold, my DIY super-QuickDraws creation. Credit: Meredith Dietz As we steadily increased the weight from 65, to 70, to 85 pounds, he noted growing concerns with how much the dumbbells could handle while still feeling safe. The all-steel design gives these guys a premium feel during standard use. But when you go beyond the sanctioned weight capacity, there's a sense that the dumbbells wouldn't bend or snag, but simply snap. And again, you'll need to manually keep track of how much weight you're adding, since the individual plates are not labeled, and you're exceeding the labels of the cradle. That mental math might not be a deterrent for you, but it's something to note.The bottom lineIn most cases, the hassle and safety concerns outweigh the benefits. The primary advantage of the QuickDraws—quick, convenient weight changes—is totally undermined when manually adding plates.Investing in a higher-capacity adjustable dumbbell set (like 80- to 90-pound models) or supplementing with specific heavier fixed dumbbells for certain exercises might be safer and more practical. For serious lifters approaching the upper limits of their adjustable dumbbells, I'd recommend supplementing with individual heavier dumbbells.

Every few weeks, it seems like there’s a new headline about a lawyer getting in trouble for submitting filings containing, in the words of one judge, “bogus AI-generated research.” The details vary, but the throughline is the same: an attorney turns to a large language model (LLM) like ChatGPT to help them with legal research (or worse, writing), the LLM hallucinates cases that don’t exist, and the lawyer is none the wiser until the judge or opposing counsel points out their mistake. In some cases, including an aviation lawsuit from 2023, attorneys have had to pay fines for submitting filings with AI-generated hallucinations. So why haven’t they stopped?The answer mostly comes down to time crunches, and the way AI has crept into nearly every profession. Legal research databases like LexisNexis and Westlaw have AI integrations now. For lawyers juggling big caseloads, AI can seem like an incredibly efficient assistant. Most lawyers aren’t necessarily using ChatGPT to write their filings, but they are increasingly using it and other LLMs for research. Yet many of these lawyers, like much of the public, don’t understand exactly what LLMs are or how they work. One attorney who was sanctioned in 2023 said he thought ChatGPT was a “super search engine.” It took submitting a filing with fake citations to reveal that it’s more like a random-phrase generator — one that could give you either correct information or convincingly phrased nonsense.Andrew Perlman, the dean of Suffolk University Law School, argues many lawyers are using AI tools without incident, and the ones who get caught with fake citations are outliers. “I think that what we’re seeing now — although these problems of hallucination are real, and lawyers have to take it very seriously and be careful about it — doesn’t mean that these tools don’t have enormous possible benefits and use cases for the delivery of legal services,” Perlman said. Legal databases and research systems like Westlaw are incorporating AI services.In fact, 63 percent of lawyers surveyed by Thomson Reuters in 2024 said they’ve used AI in the past, and 12 percent said they use it regularly. Respondents said they use AI to write summaries of case law and to research “case law, statutes, forms or sample language for orders.” The attorneys surveyed by Thomson Reuters see it as a time-saving tool, and half of those surveyed said “exploring the potential for implementing AI” at work is their highest priority. “The role of a good lawyer is as a ‘trusted advisor’ not as a producer of documents,” one respondent said. But as plenty of recent examples have shown, the documents produced by AI aren’t always accurate, and in some cases aren’t real at all.RelatedIn one recent high-profile case, lawyers for journalist Tim Burke, who was arrested for publishing unaired Fox News footage in 2024, submitted a motion to dismiss the case against him on First Amendment grounds. After discovering that the filing included “significant misrepresentations and misquotations of supposedly pertinent case law and history,” Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, of Florida’s middle district, ordered the motion to be stricken from the case record. Mizelle found nine hallucinations in the document, according to the Tampa Bay Times.Mizelle ultimately let Burke’s lawyers, Mark Rasch and Michael Maddux, submit a new motion. In a separate filing explaining the mistakes, Rasch wrote that he “assumes sole and exclusive responsibility for these errors.” Rasch said he used the “deep research” feature on ChatGPT pro, which The Verge has previously tested with mixed results, as well as Westlaw’s AI feature.Rasch isn’t alone. Lawyers representing Anthropic recently admitted to using the company’s Claude AI to help write an expert witness declaration submitted as part of the copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Anthropic by music publishers. That filing included a citation with an “inaccurate title and inaccurate authors.” Last December, misinformation expert Jeff Hancock admitted he used ChatGPT to help organize citations in a declaration he submitted in support of a Minnesota law regulating deepfake use. Hancock’s filing included “two citation errors, popularly referred to as ‘hallucinations,’” and incorrectly listed authors for another citation. These documents do, in fact, matter — at least in the eyes of judges. In a recent case, a California judge presiding over a case against State Farm was initially swayed by arguments in a brief, only to find that the case law cited was completely made up. “I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them – only to find that they didn’t exist,” Judge Michael Wilner wrote.Perlman said there are several less risky ways lawyers use generative AI in their work, including finding information in large tranches of discovery documents, reviewing briefs or filings, and brainstorming possible arguments or possible opposing views. “I think in almost every task, there are ways in which generative AI can be useful — not a substitute for lawyers’ judgment, not a substitute for the expertise that lawyers bring to the table, but in order to supplement what lawyers do and enable them to do their work better, faster, and cheaper,” Perlman said.But like anyone using AI tools, lawyers who rely on them to help with legal research and writing need to be careful to check the work they produce, Perlman said. Part of the problem is that attorneys often find themselves short on time — an issue he says existed before LLMs came into the picture. “Even before the emergence of generative AI, lawyers would file documents with citations that didn’t really address the issue that they claimed to be addressing,” Perlman said. “It was just a different kind of problem. Sometimes when lawyers are rushed, they insert citations, they don’t properly check them; they don’t really see if the case has been overturned or overruled.” (That said, the cases do at least typically exist.)Another, more insidious problem is the fact that attorneys — like others who use LLMs to help with research and writing — are too trusting of what AI produces. “I think many people are lulled into a sense of comfort with the output, because it appears at first glance to be so well crafted,” Perlman said.Alexander Kolodin, an election lawyer and Republican state representative in Arizona, said he treats ChatGPT as a junior-level associate. He’s also used ChatGPT to help write legislation. In 2024, he included AI text in part of a bill on deepfakes, having the LLM provide the “baseline definition” of what deepfakes are and then “I, the human, added in the protections for human rights, things like that it excludes comedy, satire, criticism, artistic expression, that kind of stuff,” Kolodin told The Guardian at the time. Kolodin said he “may have” discussed his use of ChatGPT with the bill’s main Democratic cosponsor but otherwise wanted it to be “an Easter egg” in the bill. The bill passed into law. Kolodin — who was sanctioned by the Arizona State Bar in 2020 for his involvement in lawsuits challenging the result of the 2020 election — has also used ChatGPT to write first drafts of amendments, and told The Verge he uses it for legal research as well. To avoid the hallucination problem, he said, he just checks the citations to make sure they’re real.“You don’t just typically send out a junior associate’s work product without checking the citations,” said Kolodin. “It’s not just machines that hallucinate; a junior associate could read the case wrong, it doesn’t really stand for the proposition cited anyway, whatever. You still have to cite-check it, but you have to do that with an associate anyway, unless they were pretty experienced.”Kolodin said he uses both ChatGPT’s pro “deep research” tool and the LexisNexis AI tool. Like Westlaw, LexisNexis is a legal research tool primarily used by attorneys. Kolodin said that in his experience, it has a higher hallucination rate than ChatGPT, which he says has “gone down substantially over the past year.” AI use among lawyers has become so prevalent that in 2024, the American Bar Association issued its first guidance on attorneys’ use of LLMs and other AI tools. Lawyers who use AI tools “have a duty of competence, including maintaining relevant technological competence, which requires an understanding of the evolving nature” of generative AI, the opinion reads. The guidance advises lawyers to “acquire a general understanding of the benefits and risks of the GAI tools” they use — or, in other words, to not assume that an LLM is a “super search engine.” Attorneys should also weigh the confidentiality risks of inputting information relating to their cases into LLMs and consider whether to tell their clients about their use of LLMs and other AI tools, it states.Perlman is bullish on lawyers’ use of AI. “I do think that generative AI is going to be the most impactful technology the legal profession has ever seen and that lawyers will be expected to use these tools in the future,” he said. “I think that at some point, we will stop worrying about the competence of lawyers who use these tools and start worrying about the competence of lawyers who don’t.”Others, including one of the judges who sanctioned lawyers for submitting a filing full of AI-generated hallucinations, are more skeptical. “Even with recent advances,” Wilner wrote, “no reasonably competent attorney should out-source research and writing to this technology — particularly without any attempt to verify the accuracy of that material.”See More:

Insurance is a modern necessity—and it can often be a literal lifesaver. When any sort of disaster strikes, whether it’s to your property, your business, or your health, getting a payment on your claim can mean the difference between getting through the emergency in one piece and being buried under bills for years to come.While it might seem pretty straightforward, anyone who’s actually dealt with insurance companies knows that their least favorite thing to do in this world is pay out on claims. In fact, studies have found that 17% of claims made to HealthCare.gov insurers and 18% of claims made to private insurers are denied—with some insurance companies rejecting nearly 50% of all claims.In fact, some insurers employ several legal but underhanded tricks to avoid paying out on claims. Here are five common tricks insurance companies will use against you.Moving as slowly as possibleThe simplest trick an insurance company can play is to drag their feet on your claim—there’s a reason the phrase “deny and delay” has become linked to the insurance industry as a whole. This tactic works because your insurer knows you’re desperate for a settlement on your claim; that’s the whole point of insurance. The longer they make you wait, the more likely you’ll accept whatever they offer you, even if you know it’s much less than you’re entitled to.Delay tactics vary, but can include:Documentation overload. Insurance companies sometimes request huge amounts of (sometimes unnecessary) documentation that takes a lot of time to procure and organize.Personnel swaps. Insurers may change the adjuster and other employees on your case, with each new person requiring some time to review the claim and get up to speed.Claiming no response. Your insurer asked for something, and you provided it. Weeks later they claim they never received it, and ask that you submit it again.The best way to counter these tactics is meticulous record-keeping. If you feel that your insurer is asking for unnecessary documentation, ask them to explain why they need the documents—this sometimes makes document requests magically vanish. Send all written communications via certified mail and turn on read receipts for emails and other electronic communications.Love bombingInsurers are often extremely nice to you when you initially start dealing with them. They express sympathy, use the words “I’m sorry” in the context of your injuries or loss, and generally sound warm and friendly. That’s nice, and may even be genuine. But it’s also a tactic they use to delay or eventually find reasons to deny your claim.Studies have found that apologies can be weaponized, and that people will tolerate delays and settle for less if they think the other party is taking responsibility or expressing empathy. Being excessively nice to you can fool you into thinking you can rely on the insurer to handle things on your behalf. This lets the company delay as much as possible, stringing you along. Love bombing like this can also get you to say things you shouldn’t say—as we’ll see in the next entry.Twisting your wordsAnother reason an insurance adjuster or other employee might apologize to you? Because it can gently goad you into expressing regrets of your own which can then be used against you. Any expression of apology or regret could be interpreted as an admittance of fault. And establishing a friendly, sympathetic rapport with you could be a tactic to get you to say more than you should by speculating on causes or your responsibility in a claim.For example, while speaking with a friendly adjuster about a car accident you were involved with, you might tell them you wish you’d noticed the other car driving erratically—if you had, you might have avoided the accident. This might seem like a simple observation, but it could be twisted into an admittance that you weren’t paying attention—and thus your claim is denied.Insurers will also sometimes demand that you submit a recorded statement, often very quickly after the incident covered by the claim. They will sometimes state that this is best for you, as it will get the claim moving more quickly. But a rushed recorded statement can also lead to a denied claim—if you’re wrong or inaccurate about anything in your statement, this could be used as a basis for denial.To avoid the tactics listed above, follow a few simple rules for dealing with insurers:Lawyer up. Hiring a lawyer to help you deal with insurance claims might seem like overkill, but you should always have a lawyer with you when speaking with insurers. An experienced attorney can ensure you don’t say anything that could hurt your claim.Never record. You’re typically not required to submit recorded statements, so don’t do it. Insist that all communications be done in person or over the phone, with your attorney present.Be suspicious. If an adjuster or other representative of the insurance company is overly friendly, don’t fall for it. Their sympathy might be genuine, but it can still get you into trouble if you let your guard down.RushingIronically, an effective tactic to delay and deny claims is to rush things. You file your claim, and before you can get organized, hire a lawyer, and recover from whatever happened, the insurer is on the phone, offering a settlement. This is often combined with pressure—like sending you a letter stating that you have two weeks to accept the settlement offer, or the company will “close the file.”This is usually designed to reduce the payout—that easy, fast settlement is probably for a lot less than the amount you’re actually entitled to—and to force errors on your part. By rushing to pull together information, you’ll probably make mistakes that can then be used to deny the claim.You can defend against this in two simple ways:Slow down. Ignore pressure to respond immediately or by arbitrary deadlines. Take your time, gather information, and respond when you’re ready. An attorney can help by acting as a buffer between you and the company.Know the statute. If your insurer tells you it will close your claim file, let it happen. It’s a meaningless administrative action. Your state’s laws will have a defined Statute of Limitations on your claim—a period of time when you’re legally allowed to pursue the claim. As long as you’re within that time period, you can force the insurer to re-open the claim.LowballingIf your insurer doesn’t think it can totally deny your claim, it may offer you a lowball settlement. You shouldn’t accept an insurance company’s calculations as gospel. In fact, the most important piece of information you can have about the claims process is that you are allowed to hire your own insurance adjuster. A public insurance adjuster works for you, not the insurance company, and will often arrive at a much higher figure for your claim.Hiring your own adjuster also insulates you from internal delays, as you won’t have to wait on your insurer’s processes or play phone tag with their adjuster. In addition to an experienced lawyer, a public adjuster can also ensure that you have all the support and knowledge you need to navigate the often murky world of insurance claims.

Age verification is coming to app stores in Texas, meaning that users could soon be required to provide some form of identification in order to download anything from the Google Play and Apple App stores, regardless of the app's content. Earlier this week, Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas App Store Accountability Act, which is set to take effect at the beginning of next year. The new law, which purports to be about keeping children safer online, has significant implications for user privacy and data security. What will be required for app store age verification in Texas?The Texas law will require Google and Apple to verify the age of all users before they download any app through their app stores, even if the app has no sensitive or age-specific content. Parents will have to provide consent for minors to download apps or make purchases, and app stores will have to confirm that parents or guardians have the legal authority to make those decisions for their children. App stores will also have to share which age categories users fall into (child, young teen, older teen, or adult) with app developers. While the specifics are yet to be determined, that means Google and Apple will have to collect some form of user identification, whether that's a driver's license, passport, or other government-issued ID, or biometric data, such as a facial scan, for anyone using their app stores in Texas. Even more documentation will be required for parents proving legal guardianship of minor users. Utah passed a similar bill earlier this year making app stores responsible for centralizing age verification, and while its requirements are slightly less onerous, they're not much better when it comes to your privacy. How age verification compromises your privacyPrivacy experts—as well as both Apple and Google—have raised alarms about the implications of age verification, noting that requiring all users to turn over sensitive personal information included in data-rich documents that can prove your age is a form of digital surveillance. It creates an identifiable record of online activity and increases the risk that the data will be used, shared, or sold (unlike physical ID checks, which are momentary and impermanent). Age verification also presents security concerns with how sensitive user data is collected and stored. Data breaches are a fact of life in 2025, and individuals may have very little (if any) knowledge about whether and how their information is used and stored without their consent, and without recourse if it is compromised. Aaron Mackey, free speech and transparency litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), notes that the Texas law doesn't have any built-in protections for user data, such as minimizing what is collected and transmitted and for how long it is retained. Plus, there are risks present in the likelihood that app stores will utilize third-party verification services to comply with the requirements, meaning data is available to multiple parties. The EFF and the ACLU also argue that online age verification requirements violate users' First Amendment rights, as they may make protected free speech inaccessible—if adults don't have a valid form of identification, or facial recognition inaccurately estimates age, or minors can't get parental consent—or force people to choose between shielding their privacy and being online. "If I have to provide this level of personal information because the government mandates it just to download an app from an app store, I'm going to be significantly worried about what happens to my data, and I might just decide to not actually download the app or even use this app store," Mackey says.

When George R.R. Martin crafted the world of Westeros back in the 90s, he probably didn’t think his words would go on to spawn graphic novels, TV shows, action figures, video games, and more. Moreover, I doubt the author expected his works to be adapted into a mobile-friendly action-RPG built to prioritize predatory microtransactions over the rich lore he’d spent decades perfecting. Yet in 2025, we have Game of Thrones: Kingsroad, a visually striking open-world exploration game that looks compelling in motion, but hones in more on menus and currency than fantasy adventure. And, as you push deeper into its sizable campaign to uncover a plethora of in-game currencies and progress-halting hurdles, the neo-medieval jaunt starts to feel more like a lesson in asset management than a thoughtful RPG. Kingsroad takes place during season four of the HBO TV series, putting you in the fur-lined boots of a northern-born bastard of House Tyre. With your father sickly and your inheritance caught up in the strict succession rules of the realm, the only hope for the safety of your people is to borrow, beg, and steal your way into the hearts of the lords and ladies of Westeros. Naturally, things aren’t as simple as just asking, and you’ll have to go round the houses (literally) to solve land disputes, find missing soldiers, and knock together the heads of vassal-house warriors on your way to earning your flowers. Alongside a cavalcade of curious NPCs, there are also White Walkers, mythical beasts, and traitorous Boltons to butt heads with. Thankfully, Westeros’ misfortune makes for an enticing landing pad for you to start from. PlayBefore you dive into the cobbled streets and open roads of Westeros, though, you’ll first need to pick a combat archetype to play as: a brutish Sellsword, a skilful Knight, or a nimble Assassin. Fuelled by my love of Brienne of Tarth and Dungeons & Dragons’ Barbarian class, I opted for the axe-wielding Sellsword, whose heavy strikes can easily wind gaggles of enemy forces. Indecisive? Good news: Kingsroad does allow you to switch between archetypes at any time, and your inventory is shared across your three possible characters, so you can boost your alts with your main’s hard-earned loot. That said, I was disappointed to find that once you finalise a character, you can’t delete them and start that class over, or change their name, a feature that bit me in the butt when testing how unsightly I could make my Knight. With your combat destiny chosen, Kingsroad’s decently impressive character creator lets you use a mixture of face-contorting sliders and colour-pickers to specialise your plucky hero. It doesn’t have the depth of something like Dragon’s Dogma 2 (although that’s an admittedly high bar), but I am glad I was able to bestow my characters with an identity that felt personal to me – which is to say moody, and tastefully adorned with smudgy eyeliner and edgy facial scars. You'll explore an impressively recreated map of Westeros.“Kingsroad wastes no time teaching you the basics of its combat and platforming with a tight but comprehensive tutorial, which takes you beyond the wall and back again. That’s where you’ll meet the first of many familiar faces for any fans of the show, as Jon Snow and Samwell Tarley do a decent job of filling in the narrative gaps for those in need of a season four recap. While the digital renditions of these well-known characters aren’t the most flattering, their conversations felt thoughtfully written and helped to establish my lowborn place within the setting. Soon enough, though, Kingsroad lets go of your hand and allows you to roam free across the countryside, providing a choice of campaign quests and side missions to follow, as well as plenty of points of interest to chase on your map. The open world of Kingsroad gave me the freedom to explore this (mostly) faithfully reimagined Westeros, and I enjoyed riding across snowy plateaus and uncovering the secrets of curious stone architecture nestled on the horizon. But the initial exhilaration of high fantasy galavanting wore off quickly as the edges of developer Netmarble’s fantasy panopticon started to show. For every delicate snowflake at Castle Black or butterfly dancing in Winterfell, there were plenty more low-poly fruit trees, bouncy grass patches, and possessed weapons to pick at the sheen. I admire the sheer scale of the open world Kingsroad is offering, but it’s lacking the visual consistency to make it realistic and immersive. As I soon noticed those cracks in the facade, Kingsroad started to feel like a game full of pulled punches, despite how promising it seemed at a distance.This lack of polish extends to your movement on both foot and horseback – ice skating would be the most fitting comparison. When exploring the frosty reaches of the North, this sensation is strangely fitting. However, it became wholly frustrating when it persisted while charting the sunny coastal areas near Highgarden, especially when attempting to complete the occasional platforming puzzles dotted around the icon-covered map. Typically, I was only one slip away from falling down an unscalable hillside, or worse, into a camp of fierce opponents with no way out. Up close, the animations also err on the eerie side in cutscenes. My character would often deliver a wide-eyed death stare, and I couldn't take them seriously as they’d burn holes in the townsfolk’s skulls as they explained their heart wrenching tragedies.Memorable characters surface as uncanny valley clones of themselves.“Speaking of the citizens of Westeros, their heads and eyes wobble around like strange marionettes during conversations, which dampens the atmosphere considerably. It’s a shame, because their dialogue does a great job of affirming the grim, corrupt cloud that hangs over the continent as winter approaches. I felt particularly bad laughing when an old lady thanked me for saving her daughter from being eaten by Ramsay Bolton’s dogs. Unfortunately, the most egregious offenders are often Kingsroad’s recreations of characters from the show. Memorable players, like Nymeria Sand and Varys, surface as uncanny valley clones of their likenesses. I’ll be seeing yassifed Cersei in my nightmares for many moons to come…Beyond exploration, the bulk of your time in Kingsroad is split between investing in complex resource management systems at your homestead and completing multi-stage quests and battles out in the world. As such, you can find a plethora of challenges that boost both of these areas, like dungeon crawls, bandit camps, occupied villages, and giant mythical beasts, all of which reward you handsomely for spilling blood by the gallon. How efficiently you blend your time between these two aspects is integral to maintaining a solid pace within the grind-heavy progression system – alas, a lack of technical balance makes succeeding in this endeavour profoundly painful.Game of Thrones: Kingsroad Gameplay ScreenshotsThe trouble begins with the combat, which is a total mixed bag. While your actions feel pleasantly grounded, and rugged blows always arrive with flashy particle-heavy animations, the process begins to feel overfamiliar fast. Despite the solid variety of moves available – light, heavy, and special attacks, as well as decent dodge and parry options – inaccurate hit boxes consistently hampered my attempts at strategy. Occasionally, I would need to use my head a little and skulk around an area to remove edge threats, though those tactical moments arrived few and far between. It says something unflattering that Kingsroad feels almost identical at 60 hours as it did at 20. You can specialise and upgrade your moveset in combat with traits and skill trees, too, but they do little to impact how the combat feels in motion. Kingsroad gives the impression of having useful Traits by putting options like learning to parry and crafting arrows up at the top of the trees, but as you work your way down, many of the lower options offer small percentage-based improvements to defense and attack that barely make a dent. So as your sparkly slashes lose their lustre, you’re often left cycling through the same few enemies and combos until the battle is won. It seems as though the architecture of a solid combat system is there, but much like the rest of Kingsroad, it’s all facade with no foundation. What hampers the fun most are the frequent and appropriately-named Momentum roadblocks.“Still, what hampers the fun of Kingsroad most of all are the frequently appearing and appropriately-named Momentum roadblocks. Similar to Destiny’s Gear Score, Kingsroad tallies up the quality of all your equipment, accessories, and skills into one neat number called your Momentum Score. These pesky little digits are the cruel gatekeepers of story content, forcing you to scour the map for dull side objectives that can juice the numbers and shuffle you towards the next episode. While I’m more than happy to invest in grind-heavy games like World of Warcraft Classic and no stranger to mobile-minded progress gating, the Momentum system in Kingsroad is a particularly brutish arbiter that doesn’t allow you to get crafty or punch above your weight by taking on more challenging enemies. Instead, imposing forces appear with a skull icon over their head, their damage and health ratings untouchably high. But as soon as you inch over the Momentum line, the fight shifts dramatically in your favour. This black and white process neutralises any sense of gamesmanship, and frequently forced me into hours of toil to get back to the story I was, for the most part, enjoying. Sarah's favourite fantasy jauntsSee AllWhen you’re ready to take some time out from the combat, you can invest more in the slower-paced aspects of Kingsroad, namely the tedious Estate Management side game. As the last remaining heir to Lord Tyre, his homestead, Renan’s Rest, becomes your project. As is to be expected, helping this dilapidated village flourish rewards you with the tools necessary to beef up your arsenal, and gives you a place to spend all those resources you’ve been hoarding by completing missions – though the process of cleaning up this town is about as much fun as cleaning your actual room.While the jeweller and the forge are convenient additions that allow you to craft wearable items, the most valuable activity is embarking on gacha-based Artefact Expeditions. You’ll spend resources to hire workers and send them into the wild to find more resources, as well as historical items called Relics you can then leverage to further bolster your Momentum. Similar to other gacha game systems, you’re guaranteed a high-quality item after a set amount of runs, but a standard expedition takes eight actual hours to complete, which is a frustrating turnaround when not every run guarantees a good haul. That is, unless you’re willing to pay real money to speed things up. The Story Continues - Live Service UpdatesPlayWhile it took me roughly 60 hours to complete the story missions that were available at Game of Thrones: Kingsroad’s 1.0 launch (in part thanks to the benefit of the Ultimate Founder’s Pack code we were provided for this review), once you finish up, it doesn’t really “end” and you can seek out the plethora of side quests and repeatable combat challenges across the map. While there isn’t an official roadmap for what’s on the horizon, Netmarble announced during its 1.0 release Dev Note that the team will continue to add content and make technical improvements as time goes on. Alongside the Battle Pass, there are also timed Events that offer additional goalposts and ask you to complete a series of challenges to earn further rewards. Continued support is always good, and here’s hoping things like the floaty movement and inconsistent animations might eventually get the polish they need, but I’m skeptical that much can be done to fix Kingsroad’s biggest issues without a complete rework of its economy and progression. For example, the new quests that were already added post-launch should’ve been enticing, but instead they pushed the finish line absurdly far out of sight – by my rough estimate, I would need to play more than twice what I already have just to reach the Momentum Score required to take them on (without spending any money), and that’s despite the fact that this new content seems to follow the exact same loop of mission types already used across the rest of the campaign. Thanks, but I’m good.That brings us to the elephant in the room. Almost every activity in Kingsroad can be expedited with the use of cold hard cash, which translates to Iron Bank Marks in-game. Of course, you can pay to complete an aforementioned expedition early, or buy higher-rarity expedition wagons by the dozen that don’t take time to complete. Stuck behind a Momentum block? Just purchase Gold to speedrun your jewellery maker’s upgrades and smelt higher-rated necklaces and rings to jolt your score. Typically, you can only fast travel by making your way to a special signpost first, and there’s a copper fee for each warp – but you can fast travel from anywhere for free if you pay for the premium option. Behind nearly every aggravating system in Kingsroad is a far more user-friendly one, but only if you’re willing to cough up the dough. It seems intent to toe the line between being intentionally frustrating and passably functional, subtly egging you on to pay up rather than sit through the repetitive, time-consuming activities necessary to proceed. While it’s to be expected that there will be premium aspects in a free-to-play game available on mobile devices (in addition to Steam), the overwhelming flood of paid subscriptions, resource packs, and confounding currencies feels like a heartbreaking affront to Game of Thrones fans, like myself, who have been begging for a fully-fledged Westeros RPG similar to this. Across the 60 hours I’ve played so far, I’ve felt guilty for slashing down innocent defectors and filled with joy for feeding the starving smallfolk. It's clear Netmarble wants you to feel like you’re making a difference in this world, but it’s also just as keen to remind you that you can make a difference quicker if you’re willing to enter your credit card details first. It’s sad to see so much effort put into the underlying concept of a Game of Thrones adventure like this only for it to be tarnished by microtransactions and the repetitive gameplay loops that enable them.

John Edwards, Technology Journalist & AuthorMay 30, 20254 Min ReadTanapong Sungkaew via Alamy Stock PhotoAI adoption can help enterprises function more efficiently and productively in many internal and external areas. Yet to get the most value out of AI, CIOs and IT leaders need to find a way to measure their current and future gains.Measuring AI efficiency and productivity gains isn't always a straightforward process, however, observes Matt Sanchez, vice president of product for IBM's watsonx Orchestrate, a tool designed to automate tasks, focusing on the orchestration of AI assistants and AI agents."There are many factors to consider in order to gain an accurate picture of AI’s impact on your organization," Sanchez says,  in an email interview. He believes the key to measuring AI effectiveness starts with setting clear, data-driven goals. "What outcomes are you trying to achieve?" he asks. "Identifying the right key performance indicators -- KPIs -- that align with your overall strategy is a great place to start."Measuring AI efficiency is a little like a "chicken or the egg" discussion, says Tim Gaus, smart manufacturing business leader at Deloitte Consulting. "A prerequisite for AI adoption is access to quality data, but data is also needed to show the adoption’s success," he advises in an online interview.Still, with the number of organizations adopting AI rapidly increasing, C-suites and boards are now prioritizing measurable ROI.Related:"We're seeing this firsthand while working with clients in the manufacturing space specifically who are aiming to make manufacturing processes smarter and increasingly software-defined," Gaus says.Measuring AI Efficiency: The ChallengeThe challenge in measuring AI efficiency depends on the type of AI and how it's ultimately used, Gaus says. Manufacturers, for example, have long used AI for predictive maintenance and quality control. "This can be easier to measure, since you can simply look at changes in breakdown or product defect frequencies," he notes. "However, for more complex AI use cases -- including using GenAI to train workers or serve as a form of knowledge retention -- it can be harder to nail down impact metrics and how they can be obtained."AI Project Measurement MethodsOnce AI projects are underway, Gaus says measuring real-world results is key. "This includes studying factors such as actual cost reductions, revenue boosts tied directly to AI, and progress in KPIs such as customer satisfaction or operational output. "This method allows organizations to track both the anticipated and actual benefits of their AI investments over time."Related:To effectively assess AI's impact on efficiency and productivity, it's important to connect AI initiatives with broader business goals and evaluate their progress at different stages, Gaus says."In the early stages, companies should focus on estimating the potential benefits, such as enhanced efficiency, revenue growth, or strategic advantages like stronger customer loyalty or reduced operational downtime." These projections can provide a clear understanding of how AI aligns with long-term objectives, Gaus adds.Measuring any emerging technology's impact on efficiency and productivity often takes time, but impacts are always among the top priorities for business leaders when evaluating any new technology, says Dan Spurling, senior vice president of product management at multi-cloud data platform provider Teradata. "Businesses should continue to use proven frameworks for measurement rather than create net-new frameworks," he advises in an online interview. "Metrics should be set prior to any investment to maximize benefits and mitigate biases, such as sunk cost fallacies, confirmation bias, anchoring bias, and the like."Key AI Value MetricsMetrics can vary depending on the industry and technology being used, Gaus says. "In sectors like manufacturing, AI value metrics include improvements in efficiency, productivity, and cost reduction." Yet specific metrics depend on the type of AI technology implemented, such as machine learning.Related:Beyond tracking metrics, it's important to ensure high-quality data is used to minimize biases in AI decision-making, Sanchez says. The end goal is for AI to support the human workforce, freeing users to focus on strategic and creative work and removing potential bottlenecks. "It's also important to remember that AI isn't a one-and-done deal. It's an ongoing process that needs regular evaluation and process adjustment as the organization transforms.”Spurling recommends beginning by studying three key metrics:Worker productivity: Understanding the value of increased task completion or reduced effort by measuring the effect on day-to-day activities like faster issue resolution, more efficient collaboration, reduced process waste, or increased output quality.Ability to scale: Operationalizing AI-based self-service tools, typically with natural language capabilities, across the entire organization beyond IT to enable task or job completion in real-time, with no need for external support or augmentation.User friendliness: Expanding organization effectiveness with data-driven insights as measured by the ability of non-technical business users to leverage AI via no-code, low-code platforms.Final Note: Aligning Business and TechnologyDeloitte's digital transformation research reveals that misalignment between business and technology leaders often leads to inaccurate ROI assessments, Gaus says. "To address this, it's crucial for both sides to agree on key value priorities and success metrics."He adds it's also important to look beyond immediate financial returns and to incorporate innovation-driven KPIs, such as experimentation toleration and agile team adoption. "Without this broader perspective, up to 20% of digital investment returns may not yield their full potential," Gaus warns. "By addressing these alignment issues and tracking a comprehensive set of metrics, organizations can maximize the value from AI initiatives while fostering long-term innovation."About the AuthorJohn EdwardsTechnology Journalist & AuthorJohn Edwards is a veteran business technology journalist. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and numerous business and technology publications, including Computerworld, CFO Magazine, IBM Data Management Magazine, RFID Journal, and Electronic Design. He has also written columns for The Economist's Business Intelligence Unit and PricewaterhouseCoopers' Communications Direct. John has authored several books on business technology topics. His work began appearing online as early as 1983. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, he wrote daily news and feature articles for both the CompuServe and Prodigy online services. His "Behind the Screens" commentaries made him the world's first known professional blogger.See more from John EdwardsWebinarsMore WebinarsReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like

Google’s AI assistant, Gemini, is gaining a more prominent place in your inbox with the launch of email summary cards, which will appear at the top of your emails. The company announced Thursday that users would no longer have to tap an option to summarize an email with AI. Instead, the AI will now automatically summarize the content when needed, without requiring user interaction. When Gemini launched in the side panel of Gmail last year, one of the features allowed users to summarize their long email threads, along with other tools like those to draft email messages or see suggested responses, among other things. Now, Google is putting the AI to work on your inbox, whether or not it’s something you want to use. The update is another example of how AI is quickly infiltrating the software and services people use the most, even though AI summaries aren’t always reliable. When Apple rolled out AI summaries for app push notifications, for example, the BBC found the feature made repeated mistakes when summarizing news headlines. Apple ended up pausing the AI summaries for news apps. Google’s own AI Overviews feature for Search has also repeatedly made mistakes, offering poor quality and inaccurate information at times. With the new email summary cards, Gemini will list a longer email’s key points and will then continue to update that synopsis as replies arrive. The feature won’t replace the option to manually click a button to summarize an email, Google notes. That will still appear as a chip at the top of the email and in Gmail’s Gemini side panel. Techcrunch event Save now through June 4 for TechCrunch Sessions: AI Save $300 on your ticket to TC Sessions: AI—and get 50% off a second. Hear from leaders at OpenAI, Anthropic, Khosla Ventures, and more during a full day of expert insights, hands-on workshops, and high-impact networking. These low-rate deals disappear when the doors open on June 5. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you’ve built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | June 5 REGISTER NOW The feature is initially available only for emails in English. Depending on your region, the summary cards may be turned on or off by default. (For instance, smart features are turned off in the EU, the UK, Switzerland, and Japan, Google’s help documentation notes.) Others can choose to enable or disable the feature from Gmail’s Settings under “Smart features.” Workplace admins can also opt to disable the personalization settings for users from the Admin console.