Your conversations with AI are not just data. They are raw thought.

There is a problem we are still treating far too lightly: AI chat conversations are increasingly being treated as a commodity.

This is not just about “data”.

It is about people asking questions about their health, relationships, fears, work problems, sexuality, anxiety, religion, politics, family conflicts, legal doubts, and thoughts they may not yet be ready to say out loud to anyone else.

For years, we became used to the idea that the internet tracks clicks, searches, purchases, and page views.

But a conversation with an AI system is different.

It is not just digital behaviour. In many cases, it is raw thought.

A recent UC Davis study analysing 20 popular AI chatbots found that 17 shared information with at least one third party. In some cases, readable snippets of conversations were transmitted through session replay tools.

That should make us stop and think.

Of course users should be careful about what they share. But that answer is no longer enough.

AI is being pushed into work, education, health, productivity, family life, emotional support, and personal decision-making. Once a technology occupies that kind of space in people’s lives, protection cannot depend only on individual caution.

The real question is not only: “Did the user consent?”

It is also: “Should this kind of content be collected, analysed, transmitted, monetised, or used as if it were just another piece of web browsing data?”

In my view, the answer is no.

AI chats should not be untouchable, nor should they exist outside the law. But when they contain intimate, sensitive, identity-related, or third-party information, they should receive stronger protection.

That means real transparency, data minimisation, purpose limitation, strict limits on intrusive tracking, and special safeguards when these contents are accessed or used as evidence.

If the industry sees economic value in these conversations precisely because they reveal intention, vulnerability, context, and personal preference, then the law should also recognise their constitutional and human value.

A person’s inner life should not become, by default, a surface for monetisation.