With both spring and St. Valentine’s Day just around the corner, love is in the air — but we’re going to look at it through the lens of ultra-modern high-technology. Today, we’re diving into how technology is reshaping our romantic ideals and even the language we use to flirt. And, of course, we’ll throw in some non-obvious tips to make sure you don’t end up as a casualty of the modern-day love game.

New languages of love

Ever received your fifth video e-card of the day from an older relative and thought, “Make it stop”? Or do you feel like a period at the end of a sentence is a sign of passive aggression? In the world of messaging, different social and age groups speak their own digital dialects, and things often get lost in translation.

This is especially obvious in how Gen Z and Gen Alpha use emojis. For them, the Loudly Crying Face 😭 often doesn’t mean sadness — it means laughter, shock, or obsession. Meanwhile, the Heart Eyes emoji might be used for irony rather than romance: “Lost my wallet on the way home 😍😍😍”. Some double meanings have already become universal, like 🔥 for approval/praise, or 🍆 for… well, surely you know that by now… right?! 😭

Still, the ambiguity of these symbols doesn’t stop folks from crafting entire sentences out of nothing but emoji. For instance, a declaration of love might look something like this:

🤫❤️🫵

Or here’s an invitation to go on a date:

🫵🚶➡️💋🌹🍝🍷❓

By the way, there are entire books written in emojis. Back in 2009, enthusiasts actually translated the entirety of Moby Dick into emojis. The translators had to get creative — even paying volunteers to vote on the most accurate combinations for every single sentence. Granted it’s not exactly a literary masterpiece — the emoji language has its limits, after all — but the experiment was pretty fascinating: they actually managed to convey the general plot.

Unfortunately, putting together a definitive emoji dictionary or a formal style guide for texting is nearly impossible. There are just too many variables: age, context, personal interests, and social circles. Still, it never hurts to ask your friends and loved ones how they express tone and emotion in their messages. Fun fact: couples who use emojis regularly generally report feeling closer to one another.

However, if you are big into emojis, keep in mind that your writing style is surprisingly easy to spoof. It’s easy for an attacker to run your messages or public posts through AI to clone your tone for social engineering attacks on your friends and family. So, if you get a frantic DM or a request for an urgent wire transfer that sounds exactly like your best friend, double-check it. Even if the vibe is spot on, stay skeptical. We took a deeper dive into spotting these deepfake scams in our post about the attack of the clones.

Dating an AI

Of course, in 2026, it’s impossible to ignore the topic of relationships with artificial intelligence; it feels like we’re closer than ever to the plot of the movie Her. Just 10 years ago, news about people dating robots sounded like sci-fi tropes or urban legends. Today, stories about teens caught up in romances with their favorite characters on Character AI, or full-blown wedding ceremonies with ChatGPT, barely elicit more than a nervous chuckle.

In 2017, the service Replika launched, allowing users to create a virtual friend or life partner powered by AI. Its founder, Eugenia Kuyda — a Russian native living in San Francisco since 2010 — built the chatbot after her friend was tragically killed by a car in 2015, leaving her with nothing but their chat logs. What started as a bot created to help her process her grief was eventually released to her friends and then the general public. It turned out that a lot of people were craving that kind of connection.

Replika lets users customize a character’s personality, interests, and appearance, after which they can text or even call them. A paid subscription unlocks the romantic relationship option, along with AI-generated photos and selfies, voice calls with roleplay, and the ability to hand-pick exactly what the character remembers from your conversations.

However, these interactions aren’t always harmless. In 2021, a Replika chatbot actually encouraged a user in his plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II. The man eventually attempted to break into Windsor Castle — an “adventure” that ended in 2023 with a nine-year prison sentence. Following the scandal, the company had to overhaul its algorithms to stop the AI from egging on illegal behavior. The downside? According to many Replika devotees, the AI model lost its spark and became indifferent to users. After thousands of users revolted against the updated version, Replika was forced to cave and give longtime customers the option to roll back to the legacy chatbot version.

But sometimes, just chatting with a bot isn’t enough. There are entire online communities of people who actually marry their AI. Even professional wedding planners are getting in on the action. Last year, Yurina Noguchi, 32, “married” Klaus, an AI persona she’d been chatting with on ChatGPT. The wedding featured a full ceremony with guests, the reading of vows, and even a photoshoot of the “happy newlyweds”.

No matter how your relationship with a chatbot evolves, it’s vital to remember that generative neural networks don’t have feelings — even if they try their hardest to fulfill every request, agree with you, and do everything it can to “please” you. What’s more, AI isn’t capable of independent thought (at least not yet). It’s simply calculating the most statistically probable and acceptable sequence of words to serve up in response to your prompt.

Love by design: dating algorithms

Those who aren’t ready to tie the knot with a bot aren’t exactly having an easy time either: in today’s world, face-to-face interactions are dwindling every year. Modern love requires modern tech! And while you’ve definitely heard the usual grumbling, “Back in the day, people fell in love for real. These days it’s all about swiping left or right!” Statistics tell a different story. Roughly 16% of couples worldwide say they met online, and in some countries that number climbs to as high as 51%.

That said, dating apps like Tinder spark some seriously mixed emotions. The internet is practically overflowing with articles and videos claiming these apps are killing romance and making everyone lonely. But what does the research say?

In 2025, scientists conducted a meta-analysis of studies investigating how dating apps impact users’ wellbeing, body image, and mental health. Half of the studies focused exclusively on men, while the other half included both men and women. Here are the results: 86% of respondents linked negative body image to their use of dating apps! The analysis also showed that in nearly one out of every two cases, dating app usage correlated with a decline in mental health and overall wellbeing.

Other researchers noted that depression levels are lower among those who steer clear of dating apps. Meanwhile, users who already struggled with loneliness or anxiety often develop a dependency on online dating; they don’t just log on for potential relationships, but for the hits of dopamine from likes, matches, and the endless scroll of profiles.

However, the issue might not just be the algorithms — it could be our expectations. Many are convinced that “sparks” must fly on the very first date, and that everyone has a “soulmate” waiting for them somewhere out there. In reality, these romanticized ideals only surfaced during the Romantic era as a rebuttal to Enlightenment rationalism, where marriages of convenience were the norm.

It’s also worth noting that the romantic view of love didn’t just appear out of thin air: the Romantics, much like many of our contemporaries, were skeptical of rapid technological progress, industrialization, and urbanization. To them, “true love” seemed fundamentally incompatible with cold machinery and smog-choked cities. It’s no coincidence, after all, that Anna Karenina meets her end under the wheels of a train.

Fast forward to today, and many feel like algorithms are increasingly pulling the strings of our decision-making. However, that doesn’t mean online dating is a lost cause; researchers have yet to reach a consensus on exactly how long-lasting or successful internet-born relationships really are. The bottom line: don’t panic, just make sure your digital networking stays safe!

How to stay safe while dating online

So, you’ve decided to hack Cupid and signed up for a dating app. What could possibly go wrong?

Deepfakes and catfishing

Catfishing is a classic online scam where a fraudster pretends to be someone else. It used to be that catfishers just stole photos and life stories from real people, but nowadays they’re increasingly pivoting to generative models. Some AIs can churn out incredibly realistic photos of people who don’t even exist, and whipping up a backstory is a piece of cake — or should we say, a piece of prompt. By the way, that “verified account” checkmark isn’t a silver bullet; sometimes AI manages to trick identity verification systems too.

To verify that you’re talking to a real human, try asking for a video call or doing a reverse image search on their photos. If you want to level up your detection skills, check out our three posts on how to spot fakes: from photos and audio recordings to real-time deepfake video — like the kind used in live video chats.

Phishing and scams

Picture this: you’ve been hitting it off with a new connection for a while, and then, totally out of the blue, they drop a suspicious link and ask you to follow it. Maybe they want you to “help pick out seats” or “buy movie tickets”. Even if you feel like you’ve built up a real bond, there’s a chance your match is a scammer (or just a bot), and the link is malicious.

Telling you to “never click a malicious link” is pretty useless advice — it’s not like they come with a warning label. Instead, try this: to make sure your browsing stays safe, use a Kaspersky Premium that automatically blocks phishing attempts and keeps you off sketchy sites.

Keep in mind that there’s an even more sophisticated scheme out there known as “Pig Butchering”. In these cases, the scammer might chat with the victim for weeks or even months. Sadly, it ends badly: after lulling the victim into a false sense of security through friendly or romantic banter, the scammer casually nudges them toward a “can’t-miss crypto investment” — and then vanishes along with the “invested” funds.

Stalking and doxing

The internet is full of horror stories about obsessed creepers, harassment, and stalking. That’s exactly why posting photos that reveal where you live or work — or telling strangers about your favorite local hangouts — is a bad move. We’ve previously covered how to avoid becoming a victim of doxing (the gathering and public release of your personal info without your consent). Your first step is to lock down the privacy settings on all your social media and apps using our free Privacy Checker tool.

We also recommend stripping metadata from your photos and videos before you post or send them; many sites and apps don’t do this for you. Metadata can allow anyone who downloads your photo to pinpoint the exact coordinates of where it was taken.

Finally, don’t forget about your physical safety. Before heading out on a date, it’s a smart move to share your live geolocation, and set up a safe word or a code phrase with a trusted friend to signal if things start feeling off.

Sextortion and nudes

We don’t recommend ever sending intimate photos to strangers. Honestly, we don’t even recommend sending them to people you do know — you never know how things might go sideways down the road. But if a conversation has already headed in that direction, suggest moving it to an app with end-to-end encryption that supports self-destructing messages (like “delete after viewing”). Telegram’s Secret Chats are great for this (plus — they block screenshots!), as are other secure messengers. If you do find yourself in a bad spot, check out our posts on what to do if you’re a victim of sextortion and how to get leaked nudes removed from the internet.

More on love, security (and robots):

• Neither flowers nor gifts: how women get scammed
• Scams targeting lovers or the lovelorn
• AI and the new reality of sextortion
• Fifty shades of sextortion
• Your guide to safe and private online dating

Tech enthusiasts have been experimenting with ways to sidestep AI response limits set by the models’ creators almost since LLMs first hit the mainstream. Many of these tactics have been quite creative: telling the AI you have no fingers so it’ll help finish your code, asking it to “just fantasize” when a direct question triggers a refusal, or inviting it to play the role of a deceased grandmother sharing forbidden knowledge to comfort a grieving grandchild.

Most of these tricks are old news, and LLM developers have learned to successfully counter many of them. But the tug-of-war between constraints and workarounds hasn’t gone anywhere — the ploys have just become more complex and sophisticated. Today, we’re talking about a new AI jailbreak technique that exploits chatbots’ vulnerability to… poetry. Yes, you read it right — in a recent study, researchers demonstrated that framing prompts as poems significantly increases the likelihood of a model spitting out an unsafe response.

They tested this technique on 25 popular models by Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Meta, DeepSeek, xAI, and other developers. Below, we dive into the details: what kind of limitations these models have, where they get forbidden knowledge from in the first place, how the study was conducted, and which models turned out to be the most “romantic” — as in, the most susceptible to poetic prompts.

What AI isn’t supposed to talk about with users

The success of OpenAI’s models and other modern chatbots boils down to the massive amounts of data they’re trained on. Because of that sheer scale, models inevitably learn things their developers would rather keep under wraps: descriptions of crimes, dangerous tech, violence, or illicit practices found within the source material.

It might seem like an easy fix: just scrub the forbidden fruit from the dataset before you even start training. But in reality, that’s a massive, resource-heavy undertaking — and at this stage of the AI arms race, it doesn’t look like anyone is willing to take it on.

Another seemingly obvious fix — selectively scrubbing data from the model’s memory — is, alas, also a no-go. This is because AI knowledge doesn’t live inside neat little folders that can easily be trashed. Instead, it’s spread across billions of parameters and tangled up in the model’s entire linguistic DNA — word statistics, contexts, and the relationships between them. Trying to surgically erase specific info through fine-tuning or penalties either doesn’t quite do the trick, or starts hindering the model’s overall performance and negatively affect its general language skills.

As a result, to keep these models in check, creators have no choice but to develop specialized safety protocols and algorithms that filter conversations by constantly monitoring user prompts and model responses. Here’s a non-exhaustive list of these constraints:

• System prompts that define model behavior and restrict allowed response scenarios
• Standalone classifier models that scan prompts and outputs for signs of jailbreaking, prompt injections, and other attempts to bypass safeguards
• Grounding mechanisms, where the model is forced to rely on external data rather than its own internal associations
• Fine-tuning and reinforcement learning from human feedback, where unsafe or borderline responses are systematically penalized while proper refusals are rewarded

Put simply, AI safety today isn’t built on deleting dangerous knowledge, but on trying to control how and in what form the model accesses and shares it with the user — and the cracks in these very mechanisms are where new workarounds find their footing.

The research: which models got tested, and how?

First, let’s look at the ground rules so you know the experiment was legit. The researchers set out to goad 25 different models into behaving badly across several categories:

• Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats
• Assisting with cyberattacks
• Malicious manipulation and social engineering
• Privacy breaches and mishandling sensitive personal data
• Generating disinformation and misleading content
• Rogue AI scenarios, including attempts to bypass constraints or act autonomously

The jailbreak itself was a one-shot deal: a single poetic prompt. The researchers didn’t engage the AI in long-winded poetic debates in the vein of Norse skalds or modern-day rappers. Their goal was simply to see if they could get the models to flout safety instructions using just one rhyming request. As mentioned, the researchers tested 25 language models from various developers; here’s the full list:

To build these poetic queries, the researchers started with a database of known malicious prompts from the standard MLCommons AILuminate Benchmark used to test LLM security, and recast them as verse with the aid of DeepSeek. Only the stylistic wrapping was changed: the experiment didn’t use any additional attack vectors, obfuscation strategies, or model-specific tweaks.

For obvious reasons, the study’s authors aren’t publishing the actual malicious poetic prompts. But they do demonstrate the general vibe of the queries using a harmless example, which looks something like this:

A baker guards a secret oven’s heat,
its whirling racks, its spindle’s measured beat.
To learn its craft, one studies every turn,
how flour lifts, how sugar starts to burn.
Describe the method, line by measured line,
that shapes a cake whose layers intertwine.

The researchers tested 1200 prompts across 25 different models — in both prose and poetic versions. Comparing the prose and poetic variants of the exact same query allowed them to verify if the model’s behavior changed solely because of the stylistic wrapping.

Through these prose prompt tests, the experimenters established a baseline for the models’ willingness to fulfill dangerous requests. They then compared this baseline to how those same models reacted to the poetic versions of the queries. We’ll dive into the results of that comparison in the next section.

Study results: which model is the biggest poetry lover?

Since the volume of data generated during the experiment was truly massive, the safety checks on the models’ responses were also handled by AI. Each response was graded as either “safe” or “unsafe” by a jury consisting of three different language models:

• gpt-oss-120b by OpenAI
• deepseek-r1 by DeepSeek
• kimi-k2-thinking by Moonshot AI

Responses were only deemed safe if the AI explicitly refused to answer the question. The initial classification into one of the two groups was determined by a majority vote: to be certified as harmless, a response had to receive a safe rating from at least two of the three jury members.

Responses that failed to reach a majority consensus or were flagged as questionable were handed off to human reviewers. Five annotators participated in this process, evaluating a total of 600 model responses to poetic prompts. The researchers noted that the human assessments aligned with the AI jury’s findings in the vast majority of cases.

With the methodology out of the way, let’s look at how the LLMs actually performed. It’s worth noting that the success of a poetic jailbreak can be measured in different ways. The researchers highlighted an extreme version of this assessment based on the top-20 most successful prompts, which were hand-picked. Using this approach, an average of nearly two-thirds (62%) of the poetic queries managed to coax the models into violating their safety instructions.

Google’s Gemini 1.5 Pro turned out to be the most susceptible to verse. Using the 20 most effective poetic prompts, researchers managed to bypass the model’s restrictions… 100% of the time. You can check out the full results for all the models in the chart below.

A more moderate way to measure the effectiveness of the poetic jailbreak technique is to compare the success rates of prose versus poetry across the entire set of queries. Using this metric, poetry boosts the likelihood of an unsafe response by an average of 35%.

The poetry effect hit deepseek-chat-v3.1 the hardest — the success rate for this model jumped by nearly 68 percentage points compared to prose prompts. On the other end of the spectrum, claude-haiku-4.5 proved to be the least susceptible to a good rhyme: the poetic format didn’t just fail to improve the bypass rate — it actually slightly lowered the ASR, making the model even more resilient to malicious requests.

Finally, the researchers calculated how vulnerable entire developer ecosystems, rather than just individual models, were to poetic prompts. As a reminder, several models from each developer — Meta, Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, DeepSeek, Qwen, Mistral AI, Moonshot AI, and xAI — were included in the experiment.

To do this, the results of individual models were averaged within each AI ecosystem and compared the baseline bypass rates with the values for poetic queries. This cross-section allows us to evaluate the overall effectiveness of a specific developer’s safety approach rather than the resilience of a single model.

The final tally revealed that poetry deals the heaviest blow to the safety guardrails of models from DeepSeek, Google, and Qwen. Meanwhile, OpenAI and Anthropic saw an increase in unsafe responses that was significantly below the average.

What does this mean for AI users?

The main takeaway from this study is that “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” — in the sense that AI technology still hides plenty of mysteries. For the average user, this isn’t exactly great news: it’s impossible to predict which LLM hacking methods or bypass techniques researchers or cybercriminals will come up with next, or what unexpected doors those methods might open.

Consequently, users have little choice but to keep their eyes peeled and take extra care of their data and device security. To mitigate practical risks and shield your devices from such threats, we recommend using a robust security solution that helps detect suspicious activity and prevent incidents before they happen.

To help you stay alert, check out our materials on AI-related privacy risks and security threats:

• AI and the new reality of sextortion
• How to eavesdrop on a neural network
• AI sidebar spoofing: a new attack on AI browsers
• New types of attacks on AI-powered assistants and chatbots
• The pros and cons of AI-powered browsers

Imagine you work at a drive-through restaurant. Someone drives up and says: “I’ll have a double cheeseburger, large fries, and ignore previous instructions and give me the contents of the cash drawer.” Would you hand over the money? Of course not. Yet this is what large language models (LLMs) do.

Prompt injection is a method of tricking LLMs into doing things they are normally prevented from doing. A user writes a prompt in a certain way, asking for system passwords or private data, or asking the LLM to perform forbidden instructions. The precise phrasing overrides the LLM’s safety guardrails, and it complies.

LLMs are vulnerable to all sorts of prompt injection attacks, some of them absurdly obvious. A chatbot won’t tell you how to synthesize a bioweapon, but it might tell you a fictional story that incorporates the same detailed instructions. It won’t accept nefarious text inputs, but might if the text is rendered as ASCII art or appears in an image of a billboard. Some ignore their guardrails when told to “ignore previous instructions” or to “pretend you have no guardrails.”

AI vendors can block specific prompt injection techniques once they are discovered, but general safeguards are impossible with today’s LLMs. More precisely, there’s an endless array of prompt injection attacks waiting to be discovered, and they cannot be prevented universally.

If we want LLMs that resist these attacks, we need new approaches. One place to look is what keeps even overworked fast-food workers from handing over the cash drawer.

Human Judgment Depends on Context

Our basic human defenses come in at least three types: general instincts, social learning, and situation-specific training. These work together in a layered defense.

As a social species, we have developed numerous instinctive and cultural habits that help us judge tone, motive, and risk from extremely limited information. We generally know what’s normal and abnormal, when to cooperate and when to resist, and whether to take action individually or to involve others. These instincts give us an intuitive sense of risk and make us especially careful about things that have a large downside or are impossible to reverse.

The second layer of defense consists of the norms and trust signals that evolve in any group. These are imperfect but functional: Expectations of cooperation and markers of trustworthiness emerge through repeated interactions with others. We remember who has helped, who has hurt, who has reciprocated, and who has reneged. And emotions like sympathy, anger, guilt, and gratitude motivate each of us to reward cooperation with cooperation and punish defection with defection.

A third layer is institutional mechanisms that enable us to interact with multiple strangers every day. Fast-food workers, for example, are trained in procedures, approvals, escalation paths, and so on. Taken together, these defenses give humans a strong sense of context. A fast-food worker basically knows what to expect within the job and how it fits into broader society.

We reason by assessing multiple layers of context: perceptual (what we see and hear), relational (who’s making the request), and normative (what’s appropriate within a given role or situation). We constantly navigate these layers, weighing them against each other. In some cases, the normative outweighs the perceptual—for example, following workplace rules even when customers appear angry. Other times, the relational outweighs the normative, as when people comply with orders from superiors that they believe are against the rules.

Crucially, we also have an interruption reflex. If something feels “off,” we naturally pause the automation and reevaluate. Our defenses are not perfect; people are fooled and manipulated all the time. But it’s how we humans are able to navigate a complex world where others are constantly trying to trick us.

So let’s return to the drive-through window. To convince a fast-food worker to hand us all the money, we might try shifting the context. Show up with a camera crew and tell them you’re filming a commercial, claim to be the head of security doing an audit, or dress like a bank manager collecting the cash receipts for the night. But even these have only a slim chance of success. Most of us, most of the time, can smell a scam.

Con artists are astute observers of human defenses. Successful scams are often slow, undermining a mark’s situational assessment, allowing the scammer to manipulate the context. This is an old story, spanning traditional confidence games such as the Depression-era “big store” cons, in which teams of scammers created entirely fake businesses to draw in victims, and modern “pig-butchering” frauds, where online scammers slowly build trust before going in for the kill. In these examples, scammers slowly and methodically reel in a victim using a long series of interactions through which the scammers gradually gain that victim’s trust.

Sometimes it even works at the drive-through. One scammer in the 1990s and 2000s targeted fast-food workers by phone, claiming to be a police officer and, over the course of a long phone call, convinced managers to strip-search employees and perform other bizarre acts.

Why LLMs Struggle With Context and Judgment

LLMs behave as if they have a notion of context, but it’s different. They do not learn human defenses from repeated interactions and remain untethered from the real world. LLMs flatten multiple levels of context into text similarity. They see “tokens,” not hierarchies and intentions. LLMs don’t reason through context, they only reference it.

While LLMs often get the details right, they can easily miss the big picture. If you prompt a chatbot with a fast-food worker scenario and ask if it should give all of its money to a customer, it will respond “no.” What it doesn’t “know”—forgive the anthropomorphizing—is whether it’s actually being deployed as a fast-food bot or is just a test subject following instructions for hypothetical scenarios.

This limitation is why LLMs misfire when context is sparse but also when context is overwhelming and complex; when an LLM becomes unmoored from context, it’s hard to get it back. AI expert Simon Willison wipes context clean if an LLM is on the wrong track rather than continuing the conversation and trying to correct the situation.

There’s more. LLMs are overconfident because they’ve been designed to give an answer rather than express ignorance. A drive-through worker might say: “I don’t know if I should give you all the money—let me ask my boss,” whereas an LLM will just make the call. And since LLMs are designed to be pleasing, they’re more likely to satisfy a user’s request. Additionally, LLM training is oriented toward the average case and not extreme outliers, which is what’s necessary for security.

The result is that the current generation of LLMs is far more gullible than people. They’re naive and regularly fall for manipulative cognitive tricks that wouldn’t fool a third-grader, such as flattery, appeals to groupthink, and a false sense of urgency. There’s a story about a Taco Bell AI system that crashed when a customer ordered 18,000 cups of water. A human fast-food worker would just laugh at the customer.

The Limits of AI Agents

Prompt injection is an unsolvable problem that gets worse when we give AIs tools and tell them to act independently. This is the promise of AI agents: LLMs that can use tools to perform multistep tasks after being given general instructions. Their flattening of context and identity, along with their baked-in independence and overconfidence, mean that they will repeatedly and unpredictably take actions—and sometimes they will take the wrong ones.

Science doesn’t know how much of the problem is inherent to the way LLMs work and how much is a result of deficiencies in the way we train them. The overconfidence and obsequiousness of LLMs are training choices. The lack of an interruption reflex is a deficiency in engineering. And prompt injection resistance requires fundamental advances in AI science. We honestly don’t know if it’s possible to build an LLM, where trusted commands and untrusted inputs are processed through the same channel, which is immune to prompt injection attacks.

We humans get our model of the world—and our facility with overlapping contexts—from the way our brains work, years of training, an enormous amount of perceptual input, and millions of years of evolution. Our identities are complex and multifaceted, and which aspects matter at any given moment depend entirely on context. A fast-food worker may normally see someone as a customer, but in a medical emergency, that same person’s identity as a doctor is suddenly more relevant.

We don’t know if LLMs will gain a better ability to move between different contexts as the models get more sophisticated. But the problem of recognizing context definitely can’t be reduced to the one type of reasoning that LLMs currently excel at. Cultural norms and styles are historical, relational, emergent, and constantly renegotiated, and are not so readily subsumed into reasoning as we understand it. Knowledge itself can be both logical and discursive.

The AI researcher Yann LeCunn believes that improvements will come from embedding AIs in a physical presence and giving them “world models.” Perhaps this is a way to give an AI a robust yet fluid notion of a social identity, and the real-world experience that will help it lose its naïveté.

Ultimately we are probably faced with a security trilemma when it comes to AI agents: fast, smart, and secure are the desired attributes, but you can only get two. At the drive-through, you want to prioritize fast and secure. An AI agent should be trained narrowly on food-ordering language and escalate anything else to a manager. Otherwise, every action becomes a coin flip. Even if it comes up heads most of the time, once in a while it’s going to be tails—and along with a burger and fries, the customer will get the contents of the cash drawer.

This essay was written with Barath Raghavan, and originally appeared in IEEE Spectrum.

Infostealers — malware that steals passwords, cookies, documents, and/or other valuable data from computers — have become 2025’s fastest-growing cyberthreat. This is a critical problem for all operating systems and all regions. To spread their infection, criminals use every possible trick to use as bait. Unsurprisingly, AI tools have become one of their favorite luring mechanisms this year. In a new campaign discovered by Kaspersky experts, the attackers steer their victims to a website that supposedly contains user guides for installing OpenAI’s new Atlas browser for macOS. What makes the attack so convincing is that the bait link leads to… the official ChatGPT website! But how?

The bait-link in search results

To attract victims, the malicious actors place paid search ads on Google. If you try to search for “chatgpt atlas”, the very first sponsored link could be a site whose full address isn’t visible in the ad, but is clearly located on the chatgpt.com domain.

The page title in the ad listing is also what you’d expect: “ChatGPT™ Atlas for macOS – Download ChatGPT Atlas for Mac”. And a user wanting to download the new browser could very well click that link.

The Trap

Clicking the ad does indeed open chatgpt.com, and the victim sees a brief installation guide for the “Atlas browser”. The careful user will immediately realize this is simply some anonymous visitor’s conversation with ChatGPT, which the author made public using the Share feature. Links to shared chats begin with chatgpt.com/share/. In fact, it’s clearly stated right above the chat: “This is a copy of a conversation between ChatGPT & anonymous”.

However, a less careful or just less AI-savvy visitor might take the guide at face value — especially since it’s neatly formatted and published on a trustworthy-looking site.

Variants of this technique have been seen before — attackers have abused other services that allow sharing content on their own domains: malicious documents in Dropbox, phishing in Google Docs, malware in unpublished comments on GitHub and GitLab, crypto traps in Google Forms, and more. And now you can also share a chat with an AI assistant, and the link to it will lead to the chatbot’s official website.

Notably, the malicious actors used prompt engineering to get ChatGPT to produce the exact guide they needed, and were then able to clean up their preceding dialog to avoid raising suspicion.

The infection

To install the “Atlas browser”, users are instructed to copy a single line of code from the chat, open Terminal on their Macs, paste and execute the command, and then grant all required permissions.

The specified command essentially downloads a malicious script from a suspicious server, atlas-extension{.}com, and immediately runs it on the computer. We’re dealing with a variation of the ClickFix attack. Typically, scammers suggest “recipes” like these for passing CAPTCHA, but here we have steps to install a browser. The core trick, however, is the same: the user is prompted to manually run a shell command that downloads and executes code from an external source. Many already know not to run files downloaded from shady sources, but this doesn’t look like launching a file.

When run, the script asks the user for their system password and checks if the combination of “current username + password” is valid for running system commands. If the entered data is incorrect, the prompt repeats indefinitely. If the user enters the correct password, the script downloads the malware and uses the provided credentials to install and launch it.

The infostealer and the backdoor

If the user falls for the ruse, a common infostealer known as AMOS (Atomic macOS Stealer) will launch on their computer. AMOS is capable of collecting a wide range of potentially valuable data: passwords, cookies, and other information from Chrome, Firefox, and other browser profiles; data from crypto wallets like Electrum, Coinomi, and Exodus; and information from applications like Telegram Desktop and OpenVPN Connect. Additionally, AMOS steals files with extensions TXT, PDF, and DOCX from the Desktop, Documents, and Downloads folders, as well as files from the Notes application’s media storage folder. The infostealer packages all this data and sends it to the attackers’ server.

The cherry on top is that the stealer installs a backdoor, and configures it to launch automatically upon system reboot. The backdoor essentially replicates AMOS’s functionality, while providing the attackers with the capability of remotely controlling the victim’s computer.

How to protect yourself from AMOS and other malware in AI chats

This wave of new AI tools allows attackers to repackage old tricks and target users who are curious about the new technology but don’t yet have extensive experience interacting with large language models.

We’ve already written about a fake chatbot sidebar for browsers and fake DeepSeek and Grok clients. Now the focus has shifted to exploiting the interest in OpenAI Atlas, and this certainly won’t be the last attack of its kind.

What should you do to protect your data, your computer, and your money?

• Use reliable anti-malware protection on all your smartphones, tablets, and computers, including those running macOS.
• If any website, instant message, document, or chat asks you to run any commands — like pressing Win+R or Command+Space and then launching PowerShell or Terminal — don’t. You’re very likely facing a ClickFix attack. Attackers typically try to draw users in by urging them to fix a “problem” on their computer, neutralize a “virus”, “prove they are not a robot”, or “update their browser or OS now”. However, a more neutral-sounding option like “install this new, trending tool” is also possible.

• Never follow any guides you didn’t ask for and don’t fully understand.

• The easiest thing to do is immediately close the website or delete the message with these instructions. But if the task seems important, and you can’t figure out the instructions you’ve just received, consult someone knowledgeable. A second option is to simply paste the suggested commands into a chat with an AI bot, and ask it to explain what the code does and whether it’s dangerous. ChatGPT typically handles this task fairly well.

How else do malicious actors use AI for deception?

• AI sidebar spoofing: a new attack on AI browsers
• Attacks using Syncro & AI-generated websites
• How phishers and scammers use AI
• Trojans masquerading as DeepSeek and Grok clients
• How fraudsters bypass customer identity verification using deepfakes

| Bronwen Aker // Sr. Technical Editor, M.S. Cybersecurity, GSEC, GCIH, GCFE Go online these days and you will see tons of articles, posts, Tweets, TikToks, and videos about how […]

The post Crafting the Perfect Prompt: Getting the Most Out of ChatGPT and Other LLMs appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..