A personal AI system needs a model of the user's goals, constraints, and ongoing commitments to plan and act on their behalf, and the quality of that model is bounded by what the system can observe. Broader observation does not by itself improve assistance because a bounded system must select and compress information for the task at hand. We argue that this observation bottleneck has a cooperative structure: the system builds a partial model of the user's changing life, the user evaluates its actions, and the user's consent and control shape what it can observe next. Useful and inspectable behavior can give users a reason to maintain or expand the observation channel, while failures can lead them to correct, narrow, revoke, or abandon it. We use the term cooperative observation for this feedback loop among usefulness, trust, and future access, and propose it as a framework for personal intelligence. We report a preliminary single-subject account from Organizm, a prototype used over six months, and outline evaluation directions for measuring how observation quality shapes personal AI.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Cooperative observation as a recurring loop. User evaluation affects the next observation channel, so observability is partly earned through usefulness, trust, and control. A circular four-node diagram with warm user nodes and cool system nodes, labeled with O_t, H_t, A_t, and R_t, plus a dashed purple feedback arc for channel updates.
Figure 2. Observation-channel spectrum for personal AI. Later phases can broaden the observation stream through more continuous modalities that rely less on self-report, while also increasing privacy, consent, and autonomy risks. A four-card spectrum in green, blue, purple, and rose, each with an observation benefit and a central limitation or risk, connected left to right beneath a gradient bar indicating broader, more continuous observation with less reliance on self-report.
Figure 3. The prototype couples agent personas to matching information tiers. Higher levels preserve abstraction, while lower levels keep current observations close to action. Two color-framed vertical columns of four tiers each, linked horizontally, with upward summary flow and downward priority flow between the columns.
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Daily logs
24
9
12
21
31
30
Table 1. Daily log files per month in the single-subject Organizm deployment (2026).
In personalized AI applications, such as conversational assistants and recommender systems, users interact not with models in isolation but with broader systems that access, infer, and reuse user information across components and over time. While such use of user information is integral to personalization, it also raises important privacy questions. In this paper, we argue that individual model- or component-level analyses may not capture all privacy risks arising in such systems, motivating a system-level perspective on privacy. We distinguish and analyze four interconnected privacy-risk channels in personalized AI, and subsequently propose four requirements for system-level privacy evaluation, covering interaction trajectories, internal information flows, indirect leakage, and the privacy-utility trade-off. We argue for their systematic incorporation into privacy audits of personalized AI.
Guillaume Salha-Galvan, Jiaying Xu
SJTU Paris Elite Institute of Technology · Kibo Ryoku Research
Personal AI assistants are changing how individuals use advice. We study how an advisor should design its recommendation in anticipation of stochastic consultation with personal AI whose recommendation is predictable. Personal AI enters through two dimensions: consultation probability and relative trust, which captures the relative influence personal AI receives when consulted. In the baseline model, the advisor optimally counteracts the personal AI signal. Counteraction increases with consultation probability but is hump-shaped in relative trust. The advisor's minimized loss is hump-shaped in consultation probability, vanishing when personal AI is never or always consulted. Greater relative trust in personal AI increases the irreducible loss arising from stochastic consultation. We extend the analysis to partial predictability and costly recommendation adjustment, characterizing their effects on optimal recommendations and minimized loss. The framework also accommodates richer information structures, including settings in which personal AI is perceived as having access to private information relevant to the task. We introduce an online forecasting experiment that examines how participants obtain personal AI advice and combine it with an advisor's recommendation and their initial judgments. Participants place weight on all three inputs. When access requires an additional action, some participants do not seek personal AI advice, while some others attempt to obtain it without success. Together, these findings highlight two distinct aspects of personal AI use: whether advice is obtained and how much weight it receives when available.
Yueyang Liu, Wichinpong Park Sinchaisri
1Jones Graduate School of Business, Rice University · 2Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley
Recent advances in user modeling make it feasible to conduct open-ended inference over a person's everyday computer use. Despite longstanding visions of systems that deeply understand our actions and the purposes they serve in our lives, existing systems only capture what a person is doing in the moment, not why they are doing it, limiting these systems to surface-level support. We introduce striving co-creation, a process for inferring broader life goals from unstructured observations of computer use. Grounded in Activity Theory and Emmons' personal strivings framework, our system progressively constructs a hierarchical representation of a person's activities. Strivings are, however, difficult to fully resolve from observation alone, as the same action can be driven by many different goals. Our system therefore supports an editing interface that gives people agency over how they are understood by the system, feeding their corrections back into subsequent rounds of striving induction. In a week-long field deployment (N=14), we find that our co-creation process produces strivings that participants recognize as representative of their long-term goals and gives them greater agency than baseline methods.