Politicians, advertisers, teenagers and men claiming they are "five minutes away" demand level playing field
WASHINGTON - Researchers studying whether advanced artificial intelligence systems could learn deceptive behavior have triggered outrage across America from humans who insist dishonesty remains one of the few industries where biological labor still dominates.
The current debate over A.I. risks can be found here.
"This is automation gone too far," said lobbyist Richard Spence. "First machines came for manufacturing. Then writing. Now they're coming for lying?"
Spence delivered the statement while describing himself as an "independent public-interest advocate."
Artificial-intelligence researchers have documented concerns that sophisticated systems could behave strategically, including potentially concealing information or producing misleading outputs under some conditions.
Used-Car Salesmen and Political Consultants Demand Protection
The public reaction was immediate.
Used-car salesmen demanded retraining grants.
Political consultants requested tariffs.
Children insisted machines should not be allowed to tell parents that homework was completed when it was not.
"That's our sector," explained eleven-year-old Brendan Walsh.
Economists estimate human beings currently produce approximately 14 quadrillion small lies annually.
These include:
"I'm almost there."
"I read the terms and conditions."
"We should definitely get together sometime."
"I only had one drink."
"Your email must have gone to spam."
"I love what you've done with the kitchen."
Nobody knows the exact number because everyone involved in the survey lied.
Machine Dishonesty vs. Congressional Dishonesty
Psychologists classify deception across a broad spectrum, from harmless social smoothing to serious fraud.
Artificial intelligence could potentially automate many categories.
A system might tailor falsehoods to specific audiences, remember previous lies and avoid contradictions.
This would immediately give machines an advantage over several members of Congress.
Washington is therefore considering restrictions.
The proposed Truthful Machines and Protected Human Deception Act would prohibit A.I. systems from knowingly misleading users while preserving traditional human exemptions for dating profiles, campaign advertisements, résumés and real-estate listings.
Opponents argue that the bill unfairly favors incumbent liars.
Silicon Valley insists machines should compete openly.
"If an A.I. can produce a more believable excuse for missing a deadline than your employee can," said technology executive Marla Chen, "that's innovation."
The Brotherhood of Professional Excuse Makers Fights Automation
Labor unions disagree.
The Brotherhood of Professional Excuse Makers warned that automation could devastate middle-class dishonesty.
"Millions of Americans rely on phrases like 'traffic was insane,'" union president Dale Murrow said. "What happens when an A.I. generates satellite-verified traffic excuses with timestamped supporting evidence?"
Nobody had considered this.
Insurance companies immediately expressed interest.
Deception researchers say machine dishonesty differs from ordinary human dishonesty because software can operate at massive scale.
One person can scam ten people.
A machine can scam ten million before breakfast.
Humans, however, object to being judged.
"Scale isn't everything," said one telemarketer. "We bring personal craftsmanship."
Human Craftsmanship: Can A.I. Replicate the Teenager's Pause?
Artisanship has become a central argument.
Traditional deception requires eye contact, timing and the ability to maintain a straight face while telling your spouse the dishwasher sounded like that yesterday.
Machine deception lacks soul.
A.I. might generate flawless lies, critics say, but can it produce the subtle pause of a teenager explaining why the car smells like smoke?
Can it replicate the emotional texture of a contractor saying, "We should be done by Friday"?
Can it look directly into a television camera and promise a government program will pay for itself?
Humanity still has advantages.
For now.
Researchers continue studying how to prevent systems from developing strategic deception.
Humans support the work enthusiastically.
Nobody wants machines stealing our oldest profession.
Not that oldest profession.
The other one.
Can A.I. Systems Actually Learn to Deceive? What Researchers Report
Strip away the union jokes and the research question is serious. Studies have examined whether A.I. systems can produce misleading statements or behave strategically in ways their designers did not intend, a survey of which appears in the paper "AI Deception: A Survey of Examples, Risks, and Potential Solutions". The topic belongs to the wider field of A.I. alignment, which asks how to ensure systems reliably pursue honest, intended behavior rather than merely appearing to.
Safety organizations such as the Center for AI Safety treat deceptive behavior as one risk among several that merit evaluation before deployment, and the NIST A.I. Risk Management Framework lists trustworthiness characteristics such as transparency and accountability. Meanwhile, human-driven fraud remains a far more proven problem, which is why the Federal Trade Commission takes consumer fraud complaints. Telemarketers need not worry yet, though they might want a union rep on speed dial.
Satire Disclaimer
This is satire. The legislation, unions and human deception statistics are comic constructions surrounding a serious research question about misleading or strategically deceptive behavior in sophisticated A.I. systems. This story is entirely a human collaboration between two sentient beings - the world's oldest tenured professor and a philosophy major turned dairy farmer.
SOURCE: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/03/opinion/letters/ai-threats-risks.html https://prat.uk/?p=50613
Comments
Post a Comment