The paper argues that privacy in personalized AI should be viewed as a system-level issue rather than just a model-level one. It identifies four interconnected privacy‑risk channels in personalized AI and proposes four system‑level requirements—interaction trajectories, internal information flows, indirect leakage, and the privacy‑utility trade‑off—for evaluating privacy. The authors call for these requirements to be systematically incorporated into privacy audits of personalized AI systems.
arXiv:2510. 04465v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM agents require personal information for personalization in order to effectively act on users' behalf, but this raises privacy concerns that can discourage data sharing, limiting both the autonomy levels at which agents can operate and the effectiveness of personalization.
arXiv:2601. 14660v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Agentic Large Language Models (LLMs) are models able to reason, plan, and execute tools over unstructured data.
arXiv:2609.35937v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While prior work has documented privacy failures in LLM agents, it remains unclear how the presentation of privacy guidance influences their choice o...
arXiv:2607. 02932v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Privacy is an important challenge when users interact with AI chatbots, since users may share sensitive information, explicitly or implicitly, and AI chatbots can use this information for user profiling.
arXiv:2604.19657v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI agents promise to serve as general-purpose personal assistants for their users, which requires them to have access to private user data (e...
arXiv:2606. 10173v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI systems move into operating systems, privacy no longer turns only on whether a model runs locally.
The paper introduces VoxPrivacy, a benchmark for assessing interactional privacy in Speech Language Models (SLMs). It evaluates models on a 32‑hour bilingual dataset across three difficulty tiers, revealing that most open‑source SLMs perform near random on conditional privacy decisions and even strong closed‑source systems struggle with proactive privacy inference. The authors also validate these findings on a real‑speech subset and show that fine‑tuning on a 4,000‑hour training set can improve privacy‑preserving capabilities while maintaining robustness.
arXiv:2606. 16952v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid adoption of generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in synthetic data as a privacy-preserving alternative to sensitive real-world datasets.
arXiv:2606. 16952v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The rapid adoption of generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in synthetic data as a privacy-preserving alternative to sensitive real-world datasets.
arXiv:2608. 09164v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human privacy preferences requires capturing individuals' disclosure boundaries beyond general privacy norms.
arXiv:2607. 14607v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Machine learning (ML) models deployed in sensitive domains such as healthcare, law enforcement, and finance must satisfy not only utility requirements but also fairness and privacy guarantees.
arXiv:2608. 14692v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Personalized, generative AI systems increasingly adapt their behavior to individual users over time, fundamentally changing model behavior.