OPENAI’S recent rollout of ChatGPT Pulse, a feature that promises to “work for you overnight” by proactively compiling personalised briefings drawn from your chat history, connected apps and stated preferences, marks an inflexion point in consumer AI.
Superficially, it is convenient: morning cards that remind you of meetings, flag important emails or suggest actions. Beneath that convenience, however, lies a less kind architecture: a persistent, anticipatory surveillance mode that treats personal life as a continuous data stream to be sampled, synthesised and monetised.
For Zimbabwean readers who have watched privacy protections ebb and flow, and who live in a context where state and corporate intrusions already loom large, Pulse is not merely another app feature; it is a potential vector of sustained privacy harm disguised as helpfulness.
The essential privacy problem with Pulse is structural rather than incidental. Traditional privacy harms from online services typically arise when users voluntarily share data in discrete moments: filling a form, uploading a photo, or granting app permission.
Pulse shifts the paradigm from episodic disclosure to continuous context harvesting. It cross-references past conversations, memory, calendar events, emails and possibly third‑party services to build a composite portrait of the user.
That composite is intrinsically more revealing than the sum of its parts. A single calendar entry is innocuous; aggregated with chat excerpts, reading habits and behavioural signals, it becomes predictive of intentions, vulnerabilities and relationships.
The danger is not only that more data is collected, but that the data’s inferential power, the ability to forecast behaviour, preferences or even health status, increases exponentially.
This intensified inference raises acute concerns in three interlinked domains: consent, data minimisation and the commercial logic of predictive personalisation.
- Free media environment key developmental reportage says PemSec Mangwana
- CAPS United rob Wha Wha
- CAPS Utd salvage point in four-goal thriller
- MAKEPEKEPE WIN AT LAST
Keep Reading
First, the veneer of “opt‑in” consent is thin. Many users will enable Pulse because it is pitched as a one‑time toggle to improve their daily lives. Yet genuine informed consent requires an understanding of what Pulse will infer about one’s life, how long those inferences persist, and with whom they may be shared or monetised.
Most onboarding flows are poor conveyors of such nuance; they favour immediate activation over deliberative understanding. In contexts such as Zimbabwe, where digital literacy varies and regulatory oversight is still consolidating, the risk that consent will be given without full appreciation is amplified.
Second, Pulse challenges the principle of data minimisation. Good privacy practice holds that systems should collect the minimum necessary data for a stated purpose.
Pulse’s design, by contrast, encourages maximalist accumulation precisely because its effectiveness is measured by the richness of context it can draw on.
The feature’s success is thus actively aligned with a business incentive to retain and reuse user signals across time. Even with promises of user control and retention windows, the temptation for platforms to extend retention to improve models or personalise advertising is strong, particularly when commercial pressures intensify and corporate strategies pivot towards “proactive” AI services that command premium subscriptions.
Third, the predictive economy that Pulse represents has distributive consequences. AI systems that anticipate needs become gatekeepers of attention: they nudge, prioritise and occasionally opine on what we should care about.
In Zimbabwe, this could skew civic and economic life in subtle ways. Consider public information: if a proactive assistant curates political updates or charity appeals according to inferred preferences, it may channel citizens into informational silos in which sponsored narratives gain amplified reach.
Or consider financial decision‑making: personalised prompts about loans, investments, or consumer offers could disproportionately influence those with limited access to independent financial advice, raising questions about fairness, transparency and fiduciary duty.
Security is another prism through which Pulse’s risks must be examined. The aggregation of high‑value contextual signals increases the attractiveness of accounts as targets for compromise.
An adversary who obtains access to a Pulse‑enabled account gains not just an email or calendar but a day‑by‑day map of routine, obligations and social connections.
In a region where cyber hygiene can be inconsistent and phishing threats are increasing, concentrating so much sensitive inference in a single, always‑on assistant magnifies risk.
Effective security depends on layered protections and robust incident response; without these, the feature transforms a personal assistant into a single point of catastrophic exposure.
Equally problematic is the opacity of algorithmic shaping. Pulse is built on internal models whose reasoning is not easily inspected. When the assistant decides what constitutes an “important” email or which news items are “relevant”, those decisions reflect design choices and implicit values embedded by engineers and commercial stakeholders.
Users are unlikely to see or contest these choices. The result is a subtle shift in epistemic authority: the AI begins to mediate what counts as salient in a user’s life.
In societies already grappling with trust deficits in media and institutions, surrendering such curatorial power to a corporate model with opaque priorities is fraught.
Regulatory responses are partial but instructive. Well‑developed privacy regimes insist on principles that would blunt many of Pulse’s risks: purpose limitation, stronger transparency obligations, data minimisation, and rights to access, correction and deletion.
Zimbabwe’s data protection framework, while evolving, must be strengthened with explicit attention to predictive profiling and to the new category of persistent, proactive agents.
Policymakers should require clear provenance labelling for automated summaries, mandatory privacy impact assessments for proactive features, and enforceable guarantees about data retention and secondary use.
Importantly, the burden of proof should lie with platform operators to demonstrate that the value delivered to users justifies the scope of data collected.
There are also practical mitigations that platforms and civil society can pursue immediately. First, minimalism design: allow Pulse‑like features to operate only on local device data unless users explicitly opt into cloud synchronisation, and provide granular toggles for specific data sources (calendar, email, chat history).
Second, implement auditable provenance: every automated insight or reminder should carry metadata indicating the data sources used and the degree of confidence.
Third, strengthen default security: two‑factor authentication, anomaly detection and session review should be mandatory for accounts that enable proactive assistants.
Fourth, transparency reports and user‑accessible impact statements must be standard, not optional.
Public education completes the triad of response. Users must be equipped to assess trade‑offs between convenience and privacy.
This is not a call for technophobia but for digital literacy that is rich in context: lessons about how inferences are drawn, how long inferences last, and how commercial incentives skew product design.
Civil society organisations and media outlets in Zimbabwe can play a central role by demystifying these features and advocating for user rights.
Finally, we must reframe the debate beyond individual choice. The harms Pulse can produce are not merely private inconveniences; they are social and political.
Predictive assistants that nudge attention shape civic discourse, market behaviour and even social cohesion.
For that reason, decisions about their deployment should be framed as matters of public interest, subject to democratic scrutiny rather than purely commercial calculus.
The question for Zimbabwe is not whether citizens will use AI assistants; they will, but under what terms those assistants will operate and whose interests those terms will ultimately serve.
ChatGPT Pulse may be marketed as a modest productivity enhancement, but its architecture points to a future in which convenience is a Trojan horse for continuous surveillance and predictive governance.
Dr Sagomba is a doctor of philosophy, who specialises in AI, ethics and policy researcher, AI governance and policy consultant, ethics of war and peace research consultant, political philosophy and also a chartered marketer- [email protected]/ LinkedIn; @ Dr. Evans Sagomba (MSc Marketing)(FCIM )(MPhil) (PhD)/ X: @esagomba
