AI Ethics | eDiscovery Team

Why Quantum Law, and Why Now?

June 17, 2026

Ralph Losey, June 17, 2026.

Privacy, Proof, and Judgment
in the Next Technology Shift to Quantum

A man in formal attire stands in front of a grand building labeled 'Justice - Reason - Evidence', facing a futuristic scene featuring digital elements and a quantum device, with the inscription 'Q DAY WILL CHANGE PRIVACY. PROOF. JUDGMENT.'

Most legal technology shifts do not announce themselves with trumpets. They slip into ordinary practice first. Email was once informal chatter, then became the core of discovery. Predictive coding was once treated as radical, then became accepted. Generative AI was once a toy for clever prompts, then became a sanctions risk, a productivity tool, and an ethics problem all at once.

Quantum computing may follow the same pattern, but it could also arrive with a loud bang and deeper consequences. The timing is uncertain. Some forecasts are aggressive; others stretch out for many years. But when cryptographically relevant quantum computing arrives, the legal effects will be hard to ignore. It will affect how long secrets stay secret, how courts evaluate machine-generated proof, and how lawyers exercise judgment when powerful systems produce answers no ordinary computer can easily check. That is why quantum law deserves attention now, before the first crisis forces good lawyers to fumble, struggle, and learn in public.

A visual representation of legal themes in a futuristic setting, featuring an hourglass, a quantum computer, and a map labeled 'The Legal Terrain Ahead', highlighting concepts like Cryptography, Privacy, Liability, and Post-Quantum Security.

Q-Day, Quantum Proof, and the Legal Terrain Ahead

This article is a clarion call and a first outline of the terrain ahead. It is designed for everyone who deals with confidential data, evidence, or dispute resolution. Quantum computing law will arrive through inventions built by corporate, university, and government teams of engineers and scientists, increasingly assisted by powerful AI systems. Some forecast its arrival next year; others stretch it out for many years.

We may not know the date when the quantum computer future becomes practical, but we do know that its arrival could prove to be very disruptive. Some semi-quantum segments have already begun to seep into legal practice through vendors, simulations, and hybrid AI systems. Full quantum computing may arrive suddenly, especially if cryptographically relevant quantum computing makes old encryption vulnerable. The legal risk does not depend on guessing the exact date. It depends on whether lawyers understand the terrain before clients, courts, and vendors begin asking questions they are not prepared to answer.

The best-known danger has a name: Q-Day. That is the day when a sufficiently powerful quantum computer is built that can break most of the public-key encryption now used to protect digital information. No one knows when Q-Day will arrive, but the danger begins before that day because encrypted data can be stolen now and stored for later. We know that is already happening. If the data is still valuable when quantum decryption becomes practical, today’s secure archive will become tomorrow’s open file cabinet. That is the “harvest now, decrypt later” problem, and it gives confidentiality an expiration-date problem lawyers cannot ignore. See NIST, What Is Post-Quantum Cryptography? and the companion paper, Post-Quantum Cryptography:

Q-Day is only part of the challenge. Quantum computing may also reshape how courts apply evidentiary standards and evaluate reliability, while creating new questions involving cryptography, privacy, liability, and insurance. See RAND, The Quantum Age and Its Impacts on the Civil Justice System (4/29/25).

One of the most important evidentiary shifts may be from Identity to Fidelity. Lawyers are accustomed to machines that produce the same answer every time. That is identity. Quantum systems may force courts to ask a different question: whether the process behaves faithfully within known error limits. That is fidelity. The issue will not be whether every run produces the same output, but whether the pattern of outputs can be explained, tested, and trusted.

That shift will force lawyers to ask practical questions. What was the model asked to do? What assumptions went in? What error rate is known? What was excluded? Can another qualified team test the process well enough to trust it?

This article only traces the outline of how law can prepare now, before Q-Day, and later, when quantum-generated evidence begins appearing in disputes. A fuller map is needed, and I have been working hard on that, but the first step is seeing the terrain.

A glass dome showcasing quantum science applications, including GPS, MRI technology, lasers, and transistors, with a scenic city backdrop and a classic telescope in the foreground.

Quantum Was Already Here, Just Quietly

Many lawyers hear “quantum” and think of science fiction and multiverses. That reaction is understandable. Quantum mechanics is strange, and lawyers are trained to distrust strange things unless they come with affidavits, exhibits, and a billing code.

In fact, quantum technology is not new. NIST’s Andrew Wilson explains that GPS, MRI machines, and laser pointers all depend on quantum science. From GPS to Laser Pointers, Quantum Science Is All Around Us. NIST’s Corey Stambaugh makes the same point in still broader terms. A Quantum Leap Forward: How Tiny Particles Can Bring Us Exciting New Tech.

Quantum computing is different because it uses quantum behavior to process information itself. NIST’s Quantum Computing Explained . The article is a useful starting point for lawyers because it explains the basic difference between classical computer bits and quantum bits, Qubits. The legal point is not the math or entangled superpositions. The point is that a different way of processing information will create new and different legal problems.

A futuristic setting depicting the concept of 'Q-Day', where quantum computers break encryption. It features a lock being illuminated by a blue beam, symbolizing decryption. In the foreground, an hourglass and metal filing cabinets labeled 'Encrypted Confidential Data' and 'Decrypted Access Granted Tomorrow' highlight themes of time and privacy.

Q-Day and the Old File Cabinet Problem

The most immediate legal problem is confidentiality. Imagine a law firm with an old litigation archive from a trade-secret case. The case settled years ago. The files are encrypted and stored in the cloud. The client has moved on. The lawyers have moved on. The archive sits quietly in a digital file cabinet, full of secrets everyone assumes are still safe.

Now ask how long those secrets must remain secret. Some secrets age out quickly. Others remain valuable long after the case is closed.

The legal danger begins before Q-Day because encrypted data can be stolen now and stored for later. The thief does not need to open the cabinet today. He only needs to steal it and wait. Q-Day is not just a future cybersecurity event. It is a present-day confidentiality problem for anyone holding secrets that must remain secret for years. See NIST, What Is Post-Quantum Cryptography?. The unpleasant feature of this risk is that it may mature suddenly. A file that was unreadable yesterday may become readable tomorrow if the lock protecting it was built on vulnerable cryptography.

Password protection is not encryption. A password controls access; encryption protects the contents. Q-Day is not a faster way to guess your great password. The risk pertains to the mathematics behind vulnerable public-key encryption. So, when a vendor responds to quantum-readiness questions by talking only about strong passwords, multi-factor authentication, or access controls, the vendor has not answered the real question. Ask what cryptography protects the data, who controls the keys, and whether there is a post-quantum migration plan.

NIST has already finalized its first three post-quantum cryptography standards to try to protect against this vulnerability: FIPS 203, FIPS 204, and FIPS 205. See NIST, Post-Quantum Cryptography FIPS Approved. See also Federal Register, Announcing Issuance of Federal Information Processing Standards FIPS 203, FIPS 204, and FIPS 205. For lawyers, the lesson is not to become cryptographers but to learn some of the basics, and to recognize that cryptographic migration has already moved from theory to standards.

A group of officials monitoring cybersecurity threats in a high-tech control room, with flags of the USA, China, and Russia in the background, and screens displaying alerts about data breaches and compromised encryption.

The National Security Shadow of Q-Day

The deepest Q-Day risk is not merely that old legal files with client secrets become readable. That is bad enough. The larger danger is strategic. If the first cryptographically relevant quantum breakthrough is achieved secretly by a hostile government, the result could be more than a cybersecurity incident. It could be a shift in military, intelligence, diplomatic, and economic power.

A state actor that can read previously secure communications may not announce the achievement. It may watch, wait, and exploit. It may use old, intercepted traffic to identify sources, compromise negotiations, expose military plans, manipulate markets, pressure companies, or weaken alliances. The first signs may not look like a quantum breakthrough at all. They may look like inexplicable intelligence failures, severe infrastructure disruptions, mass persuasion and social manipulation, followed by financial collapse and social unrest.

That is the nightmare scenario. Not a quantum computer on stage at a press conference, but a quiet advantage used in secret by an unscrupulous power. The problem is not limited to adversaries. If any military-intelligence system reached Q-Day first, the pressure to use that advantage would be immense. History teaches that strategic breakthroughs become instruments of state power long before civilian institutions understand them.

Do not think this will be like the mirage of Y2K. Although Q-Day has no known date, it is very real, may arrive in secret, and threatens power rather than malfunction.

Ben Buchanan and Andrew Imbrie’s important book, The New Fire: War, Peace, and Democracy in the Age of AI, is not a quantum book, but its warnings about advanced technology and state power apply here. Powerful computational tools can support science, medicine, and prosperity, but they can also intensify conflict, surveillance, and authoritarian control. The potential of quantum computing to vastly enhance mass surveillance and authoritarian control is especially worrisome. See my article, Escaping Orwell’s Memory Hole: Why Digital Truth Should Outlast Big Brother (March 2025), which may prove to be over-optimistic.

That is also why the CISA, NSA, and NIST have all urged organizations, especially those supporting critical infrastructure, to begin quantum-readiness planning now. See CISA, NSA, and NIST, Quantum-Readiness: Migration to Post-Quantum Cryptography. The advice is not theoretical. It is a practical checklist we should all follow, now, to begin preparations: (1) identify long-lived sensitive data; (2) build migration plans; and, (3) ask vendors what they are doing. Waiting for proof that Q-Day has arrived may mean waiting too long.

The best hope is that quantum breakthroughs occur in the open, with enough time for post-quantum defenses to be deployed across governments, courts, companies, and critical infrastructure. History offers little assurance that transformative strategic technologies will be introduced so politely.

A private company or university team might provide that warning if it reaches the threshold first and resists premature militarization. But even that hope is fragile. Once a technology can alter the balance of power, governments may smash through laboratory doors.

That is why quantum law is not just about future expert testimony or old encrypted archives. It is also about governance, secrecy, democracy, and stability in a world where computation is already a weapon of state power. Q-Day will make that weapon far more dangerous.

A man in a suit stands in a courthouse, gazing at a digital display with icons representing various aspects of the civil justice system, including privacy, liability, and digital evidence. In the background, a group of legal professionals is seated at a table, engaged in discussion.

The Civil Justice System Is Already on Notice

RAND has already examined the civil justice consequences of quantum computing, at least in a cursory way. Its 2025 report looks at what quantum computing may mean for courts, law firms, insurers, regulators, and related institutions. RAND, The Quantum Age and Its Impacts on the Civil Justice System. RAND is not selling magic crystals. It is telling the legal system to pay attention before the problems arrive fully formed.

The legal profession has been late before. It was late with email. It was late with e-discovery. It was late with cybersecurity. It is still catching up to generative AI. In Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, Judge Andrew Peck’s opinion became an early milestone in judicial acceptance of predictive coding in discovery. I served as lead technology counsel in that case, and the resistance to predictive coding was intense, to put it mildly.

Most lawyers in 2011-2012 treated machine learning in document review as dangerous speculation. Nearly all of the legal profession was in denial. If they heard the clarion calls of machine learning, they did not believe it. Cynics point out they had strong billable hour incentives not to. Today, fifteen years later, technology-assisted review is ordinary. Almost no one manually reviews a hundred thousand documents these days, much less a million.

Quantum law may follow that same pattern in some areas, but not all. Some quantum issues may arrive gradually through vendors, expert systems, and hybrid AI tools. Q-Day may not. If the first breakthrough occurs inside a military or intelligence program, the legal profession may receive no clear warning at all. We may instead see the consequences unfold in apocalyptic scenarios that are hard to imagine without grounding in AI and quantum computer capabilities.

That is one reason we must skip the denial phase that happened with AI predictive coding in 2011. The stakes are much higher now. Common sense and professional ethics require it. ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8 states that lawyers should keep abreast of changes in law and practice, including the benefits and risks of relevant technology. See ABA, Rule 1.1 Competence – Comment. The ABA made a similar move for generative AI in Formal Opinion 512. See ABA, Formal Opinion 512 on Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools.

Quantum computing will require the same kind of professional adjustment: familiar duties applied to new facts. That is not a call for panic. It is a call for competent tracking of emerging technologies, especially in computing. Be prepared.

A cartoon character representing a quantum particle, Mr. Quantum, dressed in a top hat and suit, enters a courtroom, humorously addressing the audience with the phrase 'Pardon the wave-function.' Several surprised people are seated at a table, listening attentively, while a judge presides in the background.

When Quantum Evidence Walks Into Court

Encryption is the first practical problem. Evidence is the second. Strictly speaking, a quantum computer will not “testify” because witnesses are people, at least so far. But quantum systems may generate outputs that parties will want to use as proof. A manufacturer may use a simulation to test a material under stress. A pharmaceutical company may use a quantum method to model a molecule. A financial institution may use a hybrid quantum-classical process to test risk under market conditions.

Consider a product liability case involving a battery fire in an electric vehicle. The company’s emails show engineers debating heat risks. The testing logs are incomplete. One side says the risk was known and ignored. The other side says the accident resulted from misuse or unusual conditions. Then an expert offers a simulation of the battery chemistry under conditions close to the fire. The simulation does not produce one answer. It produces a pattern of outcomes.

That pattern may be powerful evidence, but it also creates practical courtroom questions. What inputs were used? Who selected them? What assumptions were built into the model? Were any runs excluded? Could another qualified team reproduce the distribution, even if not every individual result? How does the expert explain the error rate to a judge who has a docket full of ordinary human disputes waiting outside the door? This is just a rough outline of the new types of legal questions and analysis you will need for the future of quantum.

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 should work fairly well for this kind of work, even if quantum evidence will stretch it. The rule requires expert testimony to rest on sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application to the case. See Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Rule 901 also matters because Rule 901(b)(9) addresses evidence about a process or system that produces a result. See Federal Rule of Evidence 901. Also see Daubert directs courts to consider factors such as testing, peer review, error rate, standards, and general acceptance. These factors will remain critical.

An infographic illustrating the concepts of identity and fidelity in a legal context, featuring a courtroom scene with a judge and professional witnesses. It includes sections highlighting DNA evidence, epidemiology, and risk assessments, emphasizing how the law relies on probability.

Identity Versus Fidelity

Lawyers like identity. We like exact copies, matching signatures, stable timestamps, and hash values that confirm a file has not changed. That instinct served us well in e-discovery. A hash value is a beautiful thing. It uses straightforward mathematical analysis to show whether the file is the same. The same values appear each time the hash analysis of the document is run.

Quantum systems often require a different instinct. The key question may not be whether the machine gives the identical output every time. The question may be whether it behaves with fidelity. Identity asks whether we got the same answer again. Fidelity asks whether the system behaved as expected, within known error limits.

A courtroom analogy helps. Suppose a careful witness is asked three times whether the traffic light was red. On Monday she says she is almost certain it was red. On Tuesday she says she would put the probability very high. On Wednesday she says red is by far the most likely explanation. A cross-examiner hears only contradiction. A better lawyer hears the same judgment expressed in different language.

Quantum outputs can work in a similar way. Variation is not always unreliability. Sometimes variation is the form the reliable answer takes. Law already understands this better than it admits. DNA evidence, sampling, epidemiology, damages models, and risk assessments all rely on probability. We go into this in detail in the course using both published cases and hypotheticals. Quantum evidence will make probability too visible to ignore. It will add a new dimension to the core legal concept of causation.

Infographic illustrating the transition from traditional documents to model evidence in legal processes, featuring sections on document evidence, modeling examples, discovery requirements, and court decision-making.

From Documents to Models

For most of legal history, lawyers have been document hunters. Who wrote the email? What did the contract say? Where is the missing report? What did the board know? That world is not disappearing. Documents still show notice, intent, concealment, delay, agreement, and knowledge.

But AI and quantum systems push law toward model evidence. A model does not merely record what happened. It tests what likely would happen under stated conditions. Return to the battery-fire example. The emails may show that engineers discussed risk. The testing logs may show what the company actually checked. The simulation may show what the company failed to test.

The simulation does not replace the documents. It interrogates them. That is the practical shift from document-centric law to model-centric law. A discovery request may need more than the final report. It may need the inputs, assumptions, validation work, version history, and excluded runs. The producing party will raise burden, trade secret, and proportionality objections. The court will have to decide how much process disclosure is enough.

This is familiar territory in new clothing. We fought similar battles over metadata, native files, search terms, sampling, and predictive coding protocols. Quantum evidence will bring another version of the same fight: how much of the machine’s process must be disclosed before the result can be trusted?

Infographic illustrating the potential impact of AI on quantum computing timelines, featuring elements like a quantum computer, a panther representing acceleration, and a researcher analyzing data, along with text highlighting key points about error correction and research implications.

AI May Speed the Quantum Timeline

Lawyers are still adjusting to generative AI, but AI is already part of the quantum story. A 2025 Nature Communications review explains that AI is increasingly being used to help with quantum systems. In plain English, AI can help tune fragile machines, find errors, and keep quantum hardware closer to the narrow conditions required for useful work. See Artificial Intelligence for Quantum Computing, (Nature Communications, 12/02/25).

Google DeepMind’s AlphaQubit is one concrete example AI enhanced software. It identifies quantum-computing errors with greatly improved accuracy. Error correction is one of the central barriers to making quantum computers useful at scale. See AlphaQubit tackles one of quantum computing’s biggest challenges (11/20/24).

The practical point for lawyers is modest but important. Do not assume quantum development will proceed on a slow schedule convenient for law firm committees. AI may help researchers move faster. Quantum tools may later assist certain kinds of AI work, especially where optimization or simulation is the bottleneck. The feedback loop remains uncertain, but the first half of AI helping quantum is already underway. That matters because lawyers should not assume that quantum progress will move on a slow, linear timetable convenient for bar committees, vendor reviews, and CLE calendars. To me, a slow arrival would be shocking. I have seen an increase in the pace of change of technology my whole life. I see no reason this will not continue. The quantum floor is not a barrier; it is an opening.

An infographic featuring a man in a suit sitting at a desk with legal symbols around him, discussing advanced concepts like Willow, quantum echoes, and supercomputing. The background includes a futuristic corridor and text highlights on technological advancements and legal implications.

Willow, Quantum Echoes, and the Word Lawyers Should Notice

Google’s announcement in late 2024 of results achieved by its quantum computer, Willow, captured public attention. Willow performed a benchmark computation in under five minutes that would take our fastest AI supercomputers 10 septillion years. See Hartmut Neven, Google, Meet Willow, Our State-of-the-Art Quantum Chip. That claim naturally led to excitement, skepticism, and multiverse speculation. Quantum Leap: Google Claims Its New Quantum Computer Provides Evidence That We Live In A Multiverse (01/09/25, my all-time most read JDSupra article).

The multiverse is fascinating, but lawyers can leave it aside for practical purposes. The more important legal lesson comes from Google’s subsequent work on AI improved software, Quantum Echoes. In late 2025 Google described its new Quantum Echoes software as a step toward verifiable quantum advantage. The algorithm supposedly ran 13,000 times faster on Willow than the fastest supercomputers. See Google, The Quantum Echoes Algorithm Breakthrough (10/22/25).

The word that should matter most to lawyers is not “faster.” It is “verifiable.” A spectacular claim is not evidence merely because it sparkles. A courtroom claim must be tested, explained, challenged, and tied to the legal issue. Verification is the bridge between physics and proof.

What Lawyers Should Do Now

The first step is to stop treating quantum as trivia. You do not need to understand the math to recognize where it may matter. If a client has long-lived secrets, ask whether quantum risk belongs in the confidentiality analysis. If a vendor holds sensitive data, ask about cryptographic migration. If an expert relies on a simulation, ask for process evidence, not just conclusions.

For contracts, avoid vague comfort language. A clause promising “commercially reasonable security” may not tell you enough. Ask who controls the keys, what encryption is used, whether the vendor tracks NIST post-quantum standards, and how the vendor will notify customers when migration affects stored data. These are not physics questions. They are vendor-management questions. The time to learn this is now.

For litigation, start thinking about model evidence. When an expert relies on a simulation, ask for inputs, assumptions, validation work, excluded runs, and error analysis. Do not wait until the Daubert hearing to discover that the “black box” is really a locked box and nobody brought the key.

For courts, the task is not to become a laboratory. It is to insist on understandable explanations, fair disclosure, and honest limits. The judge’s job remains what it has always been: decide what is reliable enough to consider and what weight it deserves.

A promotional graphic for a law course titled 'Quantum Law Course', featuring a scenic landscape with a lawyer standing in the foreground. The image includes text that emphasizes the importance of preparation and knowledge in legal practice, with a laptop displaying the course website and various law books in the background.

Learn the Terrain Before the Emergency

Quantum computing will not eliminate legal judgment. It will make judgment more important. Some quantum issues may arrive quietly, hidden inside vendor tools, expert simulations, cybersecurity updates, and hybrid AI systems. Others may not arrive quietly at all. If Q-Day comes through a breakthrough in fault-tolerant quantum computing, the legal profession may not get a polite warning, a fixed deadline, or a long runway. It may come instead as a very rude awakening. Will you be prepared to answer the client calls?

Lawyers do not need to predict the exact date. They need to understand the questions that date will create, what the contours of the emergencies will be. Which old archives are worth protecting? Which vendor promises are too vague? Which expert models can be tested? Which court orders should require more than a final output? Which risks are speculative, and which are already present because data can be harvested now and decrypted later?

Those are not physics questions. They are legal judgment questions. The lawyer’s task is not to master the machinery, but to know enough to question the machinery, the vendor, the expert, and sometimes the client’s own assumptions. That is familiar work. The tools are new, but the professional responsibility is not.

That is why I created the online QuantumLawCourse.com.

The course is designed for legal professionals, not physicists. No math. Instead, it uses case law, legal reasoning, practical examples, and the kinds of concerns lawyers, legal tech professionals, and judges face every day. It focuses on confidentiality, evidence, expert testimony, cybersecurity, risk, and professional responsibility.

The goal is not to make you a quantum expert. It is to help you become an informed legal professional who understands enough to recognize the issues, ask better questions, and avoid learning the hard way when quantum law arrives in your own practice. This article only sketches the terrain. The course provides a full map.

A person in a suit standing on a path leading to a grand building, with columns on either side. The scene features elements representing privacy and judgment, such as locks and scales, with a futuristic cityscape in the background. The text "QUANTUM LAW" is prominently displayed above, along with the phrases "PRIVACY, PROOF, JUDGMENT" and "UNDERSTAND TODAY. LEAD TOMORROW."

Conclusion

The law has always had to judge under uncertainty. Quantum computing does not change that responsibility. It makes the uncertainty harder to ignore. Machines may calculate. Experts may explain. AI may help interpret. Vendors may package the result in polished dashboards. But courts, lawyers, regulators, and clients will still need reasons, evidence, standards, accountability, and courage.

Privacy, proof, and judgment are not abstract concerns. They are the daily work of the legal profession. Quantum computing may affect all three, sometimes gradually and perhaps someday, quite suddenly. Waiting until the emergency arrives is the surest way to fumble, struggle, and learn in public.

Consider taking the Quantum Law Course now, while the field is still emerging and there is time to prepare. The best time to learn a new legal technology is before it appears in your next emergency motion, vendor presentation, expert challenge, or board-level crisis.

Quantum law is coming. Lawyers who understand the terrain early will be better prepared to protect clients, question experts, contest false claims, and help courts make sound decisions.

1 Comment | AI Ethics, AI Instruction, Hacking, Lawyers Duties, New Rules, Quantum Law, Technology, VENDORS | Permalink
Posted by Ralph Losey

The Goblin in the Machine: What OpenAI’s “No-Pigeon Rule” Teaches Lawyers About AI Hallucinations

May 11, 2026

Ralph Losey, May 2026

This article is about a real event. It is not satire, parody, or metaphor. In late April 2026, OpenAI publicly explained why one of its frontier AI systems had developed an unusual tendency to mention goblins, gremlins, raccoons, trolls, ogres, pigeons, and similar creatures in places where they did not belong. OpenAI titled its official explanation “Where the Goblins Came From.” The title sounds fictional. The problem was not.

A humanoid robot with a friendly face sitting at a desk next to a coffee mug. The computer screen displays coding instructions and a highlighted warning about avoiding certain topics, including goblins and trolls, unless relevant to the user's prompt. — **Gremlins, Goblins and Pigeons. Oh my!**

If you take the time to study this strange episode, you will gain more than an amusing story about artificial intelligence. You will see, in unusually visible form, how Large Language Models can acquire unintended behavior from training incentives, how that behavior can spread beyond its original context, why prompt-level or developer-level instructions may be used to suppress it, and how the same root causes help explain the ongoing problem of AI hallucination. For lawyers, judges, e-discovery professionals, and legal technology vendors, this is not a curiosity. It is a warning label written in unusually memorable ink.

A collage of fantastical creatures including a green goblin, a mischievous gremlin, a large orange monster, a raccoon, a small brown creature, and a pigeon, all surrounding a glowing, swirling vortex in a cosmic background. — **Fact is sometimes stranger than fiction. This is one of those times.**

The Most Bizarre Codex Instruction of All Time

OpenAI’s example involved Codex, its AI coding agent. For non-programmers, Codex is not a fantasy product and not a casual chatbot. It is a professional software-development tool designed to help engineers plan, write, refactor, test, review, and release code. OpenAI describes Codex as “a coding agent that helps you build and ship with AI,” used for real engineering work across development tools.

That context matters. The now-famous instruction was not a joke inserted into a toy system. It was a developer-level instruction in a serious AI coding agent. According to reporting and OpenAI’s later explanation, Codex had been instructed not to talk about goblins, gremlins, raccoons, trolls, ogres, pigeons, or other animals or creatures unless they were clearly relevant to the user’s request.

WIRED first reported the Codex CLI instruction that the model should “never talk about goblins, gremlins, raccoons, trolls, ogres, pigeons, or other animals or creatures unless it is absolutely and unambiguously relevant to the user’s query.” Maxwell Zeff, OpenAI Really Wants Codex to Shut Up About Goblins (WIRED, Apr. 2026). OpenAI, then responded with its own article, Where the Goblins Came From, OpenAI (Apr. 29, 2026), explaining that GPT-5.5 in Codex showed an affinity for goblin metaphors and tracing the behavior to training incentives connected with the “Nerdy” personality. It is well worth the read.

The facts are unusual enough that they do not need embellishment. Indeed, embellishment would weaken the point. The issue is not that an AI system said something funny. The issue is that a frontier model, shaped by modern training methods, developed a persistent behavior that its maker had to investigate, explain, and mitigate. That is precisely why lawyers should pay attention.

A whimsical scene featuring a wizard in a green robe controlling a machine labeled 'GPT-5.5/CODEX BEHAVIOR CONTROL.' In front of the wizard, there are two small goblin-like creatures and a pigeon, all looking towards the control panel. A sign reads 'Gremlins, Goblins, and Pigeons, OH MY!' in the background. — Pay no attention to the Codex instruction behind the curtain.

The “Goblin” Problem Was an Alignment Problem in Plain Sight

The legal technology world often discusses AI alignment in abstract language. We talk about bias, safety, truthfulness, reliability, explainability, auditability, and human values. Those are important words, but they can become bloodless. The goblin incident gives us something more concrete.

OpenAI explained that the behavior emerged from “many small incentives,” including training by AI of itself connected to its personality customization feature, especially an introversive “Nerdy” personality. That personality was designed to make the model more playful, intellectually enthusiastic, and metaphor-friendly. In the process, certain creature metaphors were rewarded often enough that the model learned to repeat and generalize them.

I have frequently written about the ability of AI to form fictitious sub-personalities for brainstorming purposes, and note the Devils Advocate character is especially effective. Fortunately he was not involved in this OpenAi fiasco. I never instructed AI to form a shy, super-nerd personality type for training purposes. If I ever do in the future (doubtful), I will obviously be very careful to provide strong human supervisions, something which was obviously missing here. This whole incident seems like over-delegation, where the humans in the loop were not paying attentions and so triggered this Gremlin crisis,

This brings up a key point. The AI model was not “thinking about goblins.” It was responding to patterns shaped by training data, reinforcement learning, preference signals, and later adjustments. If a certain style of answer receives favorable feedback, the model can learn that style as a useful pattern. If that pattern includes odd creature metaphors, those metaphors can become part of the model’s behavior.

OpenAI’s post-mortem is valuable because it shows something that usually remains hidden. Model behavior does not simply appear at deployment. It is cultivated. It is selected. It is rewarded. It is penalized. It is patched. It is monitored. Sometimes, it is suppressed by instructions that users never see. I never knew that before.

In this case, the visible symptom was bizarre. The underlying process was ordinary. That is what makes the episode important.

Infographic explaining the 'Goblin' problem in model training, featuring sections on inputs, emergent behavior, unintended outcomes, and mitigation strategies. Includes illustrations of goblins and reference to model training inputs like human feedback and evaluations.

What Are These “Instructions,” and Why Should Lawyers Care?

Modern AI systems are not governed only by the words users type into the chat window. They also operate under layers of instructions. Some instructions come from the system level. Some come from developers. Some come from product settings, safety policies, tool configurations, or specialized agent workflows. Some come from users themselves. The user may never see, nor even know about the developers instructions that shape the response to the user’s prompts.

A developer instruction is essentially a command placed above the ordinary user prompt. It tells the model how to behave in a particular product environment. In Codex, such instructions may shape how the model writes code, uses tools, comments on programming tasks, avoids certain behaviors, or responds within a software-development workflow.

That is not improper. In fact, layered instructions are necessary. A legal AI tool should be told to protect confidentiality, avoid unauthorized practice of law, cite sources, flag uncertainty, preserve privilege, and follow the user’s workflow. The problem is not the existence of instructions. The problem is invisibility, auditability, and as just mentioned, the lack of proper human supervision of the whole process. The humans in the loop were asleep at the wheel and as a consequence the dogs got out.

In legal work, hidden constraints can matter. If a model suppresses certain language (such as profanity), and favors certain categories (such as propriety), emphasizes certain risks (such as letting the dogs out), avoids certain conclusions (such as user is wrong), or changes behavior after an update (such as no hacking allowed, eh Claude), the lawyer may not know why. That matters in e-discovery, privilege review, contract analysis, legal research, expert preparation, and litigation strategy. Another layer of e-discovery open up.

The Codex no-goblin instruction is therefore not important because lawyers care about goblins. (I for one do not, although I do. care about ‘not letting the dogs out’). It is important because it reveals how behavioral control can operate behind the scenes.

Infographic titled 'Hidden Instructions. Real Impact.' illustrating the differences between user input and underlying model instructions. It shows an iceberg with 'User Prompt,' 'System Instructions,' 'Developer Instructions,' 'Tools & Data Sources,' and 'Model Behavior Shapers' listed under the waterline. A person is seen contemplating the information with a notebook and pen on the table, emphasizing the importance of understanding hidden instructions in AI output. — If a goblin ever appears in your AI response you will know why now. The super-nerd trainer slipped through the latest hidden instructions.

The Hallucination Connection

The goblin problem is not identical to hallucination, but the two issues share root causes.

The goblin problem involved an unintended stylistic habit. Hallucination involves plausible but false content. One produces irrelevant creature metaphors. The other produces fake cases, invented quotations, nonexistent statutes, false summaries, fabricated citations, or confident statements unsupported by the record.

The difference is obvious. The connection is deeper.

Both problems arise from the same basic fact: Large Language Models are not born as truth engines. They are trained to predict and generate language. Later training stages, including supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, preference optimization, safety training, and evaluation systems, try to make that language helpful, accurate, safe, and aligned with user expectations.

But training incentives can misfire. Evaluation methods can reward the wrong behavior. A system can learn to produce answers that sound good rather than answers that are verified. It can learn fluency before truth, confidence before calibration, and completion before uncertainty. It could be trained to say, “I don’t know,” but it wasn’t. There is not much of that on the Internet. So, instead it just makes up an answer, one that it infers the user wants, because it is also trained to be a nice sycophant. Nobody wants a devils advocate around that disagrees with you. We should of course, and that is why lawyers have the potential to be great users of generative AI.

OpenAI made this point directly in its 2025 discussion of why language models hallucinate. Why Language Models Hallucinate, (OpenAI, Sept. 5, 2025). OpenAI explained that hallucinations persist in part because many evaluation systems reward accuracy alone, which can push models to guess rather than admit uncertainty. If a model guesses, it may get lucky and receive credit. If it says “I don’t know,” it may receive no credit at all. Over many evaluations, that scoring structure can make a guessing model appear more successful than a more careful model that abstains when it lacks reliable information.

That is the real connection between goblins and hallucinations. They are different failures, but they reflect the same training logic. In the goblin case, the rewarded behavior was playful metaphor, so the model learned to repeat and generalize playful creature references. In hallucination, the rewarded behavior is often answer-giving itself, so the model may learn to produce a confident response even when it lacks adequate grounding. In both cases, the model is not following truth as an independent legal or evidentiary standard. It is following patterns that its training, feedback, and evaluation systems have taught it to treat as successful.

The danger for lawyers is that hallucinations usually do not look strange. Goblins and pigeons are obvious intrusions. They announce that something has gone wrong. A fake citation does not. A fabricated quotation does not. A false summary of a contract clause, deposition answer, medical record, email thread, or judicial opinion may read with the same polish and confidence as a correct one. The surface quality of the prose may conceal the absence of reliable support.

That is why hallucinations are more dangerous than the goblin problem. The goblins expose the machinery because they look absurd. Hallucinations hide the machinery because they look professional. For legal work, that difference is critical. The risk is not merely that an AI system may be odd. The risk is that it may be wrong in a way that looks authoritative, usable, and ready to file.

An illustration featuring goblins and a bird discussing the concept of incentives and risks, contrasted with labels like 'Obvious,' 'Strange but Obvious,' and 'Plausible but Dangerous.' The central theme highlights differing risks associated with learned behaviors, with references to legal aspects and the importance of verification. — Don’t be a pigeon. Trust but verify.

This Is Not Just an OpenAI Problem

It would be a mistake to treat this as an OpenAI-only issue. The OpenAI goblin post-mortem is useful because it is unusually visible, candid, and memorable. But hallucination and unintended model behavior afflict all modern LLM systems under development, including Claude, Gemini, and other leading models.

Anthropic’s own Claude documentation expressly addresses hallucination reduction, warning that even advanced models can generate text that is factually incorrect or inconsistent with context, and recommending mitigation techniques such as allowing Claude to say it does not know, grounding answers in provided source material, using direct quotations, verifying with citations, and validating critical information. Anthropic, Reduce Hallucinations (Claude API Docs).

Google’s Gemini documentation similarly warns that Gemini for Google Cloud may produce hallucinations, including outputs that are plausible-sounding but factually incorrect, irrelevant, inappropriate, or nonsensical, and may even fabricate links to web pages that do not exist and have never existed. Google Cloud, Gemini for Google Cloud and Responsible AI (Google Cloud Documentation),

The vendors differ. The architectures differ. The safety philosophies differ. The product interfaces differ. But the fundamental problem is shared. These systems are trained to generate plausible language under complex incentives. Plausibility is not truth. Fluency is not verification. Confidence is not reliability.

This point should be stated carefully. It does not mean that all systems are equally risky, equally useful, or equally well governed. They are not. Some models perform better than others on particular tasks. Some products provide stronger grounding, citation, retrieval, logging, or enterprise controls. Some workflows are safer than others.

But no responsible legal professional should assume that hallucination and goblins are confined to one vendor. It is a structural limitation of current LLM technology.

An illustration emphasizing the responsibilities associated with AI models, featuring logos of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google. The background includes law-related imagery and a checklist titled 'Lawyer's Checklist' with items for verifying information. — Advanced AI construction and use require human supervision and skills.

The Legal Technology Lesson

Legal professionals should not respond to this by rejecting AI. That would be the wrong lesson. It would also ignore the enormous value these tools already provide when used with care.

The correct lesson is disciplined adoption.

In e-discovery, we already understand this principle. Technology-assisted review is not accepted because someone declares the software intelligent. It is accepted when the process is reasonable, validated, documented, and proportionate. Sampling matters. Quality control matters. Human judgment matters. Reproducibility matters. Transparency matters.

The same discipline must now be applied to generative AI. Legal AI workflows should be designed to answer practical questions:

Can the output be traced to reliable source material?
Did the model actually use the cited source?
Can each legal citation be verified?
Can each quotation be checked against the original?
Can each factual assertion be tied to the record?
Can the workflow be reproduced if challenged?
Was the model permitted to say “I don’t know”?
Was uncertainty preserved, or did the workflow pressure the model into confident completion?
Were model version, prompt structure, source set, and review procedures documented?
Was a qualified human responsible for final legal judgment?

These questions are not anti-AI. They are pro-reliability. They are the questions that separate professional use from casual use.

Why This Matters for Courts and Clients

Courts do not need lawyers to become machine-learning engineers. Clients do not need their lawyers to understand every detail of transformer architecture. But both courts and clients are entitled to competent professional judgment.

That includes knowing when an AI output is grounded and when it is merely plausible. It includes knowing when a citation has been verified and when it has merely been generated. It includes knowing when an AI tool is being used for brainstorming, drafting, summarization, classification, legal research, or evidence analysis, because each use carries different risks.

The goblin incident offers a rare window into model behavior because the symptom was so visible. Most legally significant failures will not be so obvious. They will not involve fantasy creatures. They will involve a misstated holding, an omitted exception, a distorted fact pattern, a privilege call made too broadly, a missed document, or a confident statement about law that is no longer current. By the way, humans can all make the same mistakes, which is one reason we tend to do better working in small teams.

That is why the legal profession, indeed all of humanity, must treat generative AI as powerful but not self-validating.

An illustration depicting the balance between artificial intelligence (AI) and human judgment, emphasizing the importance of verification and accurate legal practices. The image shows a scale weighing truthful information against misleading data, with a group of professionals discussing documents at the bottom. — Seriously, why pigeons? None of my associates ever made that mistake.

Practical Guidance for Lawyers and Legal Tech Users

The practical response is straightforward:

Use AI, but verify.
Use AI for first drafts, issue spotting, summarization, brainstorming, and classification support, but do not outsource professional judgment.
Use retrieval, citations, and source-grounded workflows whenever factual accuracy matters.
Require the model to distinguish between sourced statements, inferences, and speculation.
Require explicit uncertainty when the record is incomplete.
For legal research, verify every case, statute, rule, quotation, and parenthetical against authoritative sources.
For e-discovery and document review, use sampling, validation, audit trails, and human quality control.
For AI vendor selection, ask what model is being used, how outputs are grounded, how hallucination risk is measured, what logs are preserved, what changes when the model is updated, and whether the workflow can be explained if challenged.
For judicial or regulatory settings, avoid vague claims that an AI tool is “aligned,” “safe,” or “accurate” without evidence. Ask what was tested, how it was tested, and under what conditions.

The lesson is not distrust. The lesson is earned trust.

A woman weighing scales in an office setting, emphasizing the importance of using AI tools while verifying information. Text highlights various uses for AI and verification methods.

Conclusion: The Promise and the Work Ahead

At the beginning of this article, I promised that this strange episode would offer more than an amusing story. It does.

OpenAI’s real no-goblin, no-pigeon instruction gives lawyers a concrete example of how modern AI behavior can be shaped by training incentives, generalized beyond its original setting, and later mitigated through hidden or semi-hidden instructions. The hallucination problem shows the same root issue in more serious form. When models are rewarded for fluent completion, confidence, and benchmark performance, they may learn to answer when they should abstain, to sound certain when they should qualify, and to generate plausible legal authority when only verified authority will do.

Users must learn these idiosyncrasies and adapt.

This is not just about OpenAI. It is not just about Codex. It is not just about goblins. It is about every legal professional’s duty to understand the tools now entering legal practice. It is about understanding how to use them properly.

Generative AI can help lawyers become faster, broader, more creative, and more effective. It can improve access to justice, reduce drudgery, accelerate document review, strengthen legal education, and help professionals see patterns they might otherwise miss. But these benefits will not be realized by pretending the risks are gone. They will be realized by confronting the risks directly and building better habits, better workflows, better audits, better training, and better professional norms.

The goblins are real in the only sense that matters here: real enough to show us how fragile model behavior can be. The hallucinations are more dangerous because they usually do not look strange at all.

That is the call to action. Legal professionals should not stand outside the AI revolution, arms folded, waiting for perfect machines. Nor should they rush in, eyes closed, dazzled by fluent output. We should do what good lawyers have always done with powerful evidence and powerful tools: question them, test them, document them, verify them, and use them responsibly.

The future of legal AI will not be built by blind trust or reflexive fear. It will be built by informed confidence.

And informed confidence begins with verification.

A woman in a suit standing with her back to the viewer, looking toward a bright horizon. Elements include a mythical creature on the left, a pigeon, an open laptop, a magnifying glass, and a scale of justice, all suggesting a theme of adaptation and learning.

For educational use only. Not legal advice.

Leave a Comment » | AI Ethics, AI Instruction, ChatGPT, Technology, VENDORS | Tagged: best practices, machine learning, science, technology | Permalink
Posted by Ralph Losey

Will AI Take My Job? OpenAI’s New Policy, Rising Cybersecurity Risks, and What Comes Next

April 17, 2026

Ralph Losey, April 17 2026

Introduction: The Urgency of the Question

Will AI take my job?

A line of people in formal attire walking with somber expressions, led by a robot with a humanoid design, against a modern building backdrop. — Image by Ralph Losey using AI tools.

That question is no longer speculative. It is now front-page relevant, driven not only by rapid advances in AI, but by two recent events that reveal how quickly things are changing. On April 6, 2026, OpenAI released its Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age, openly warning that the transition to superintelligence is already underway. Just days earlier, a human error at Anthropic briefly exposed the source code of one of the world’s most advanced AI systems. It was quickly copied and distributed before the mistake was corrected. It is reportedly now in the hands of criminal hackers and enemy states worldwide. Together, these developments make one thing clear: the future of work is arriving faster, and fas less predictably, than most expected.

In my recent article, What People Want To Know About AI: Top 10 Curiosity Index, Gemini AIs and I analyzed global search patterns and online discussions to identify the public’s most urgent concerns. The number one question, How does AI work? was addressed in my follow-up article, Five Faces of the Black Box: How AI ‘Thinks’ and Makes Decisions, where we explained the technology across five levels, from a child’s guessing game to matrix algebra.

But the second question is different.

Will AI take my job—and what should I do about it?

This accounted for roughly 18% of all inquiries. And unlike the first question, it is not driven by curiosity. It is driven by anxiety, something I hear and feel in conversations about AI with all kinds of people.

A futuristic city street with a diverse crowd looking at holographic signs displaying various career options. A robot and a humanoid figure are in the foreground, interacting with technology amidst tall buildings and flying vehicles, highlighting innovation and technology in the workforce. — All images in this article are by Ralph Losey using Gemini AI tools.

This article focuses on that anxiety: economic security and the future of work. It also confronts the issue people increasingly want answered but rarely get: the timeline. When might AI reach a level capable of performing most cognitive work better than us? Because if that point is near, and recent signals suggest ii is, then the implications are profound. Most knowledge-based jobs would be affected, and the resulting disruption to the economy and social order could be significant.

The Policy Response: OpenAI’s Industrial Blueprint

The urgency of this economic question is not limited to the public. It is also front and center for the corporations building the technology. On April 6, 2026, OpenAI released Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age (“Policy Statement”) and it is likely that other leading AI companies will soon follow. This document moves beyond engineering into economic and social policy. It begins with a blunt premise: the transition to superintelligence is already underway and will reshape how organizations operate, how knowledge is created, and how people find meaning and opportunity.

The Policy Statement does not minimize the disruption ahead, or the speed at which it may arrive. It acknowledges that AI will disrupt jobs and reshape entire industries at a scale and pace unlike any prior technological shift. At the same time, OpenAI’s leadership emphasizes that the outcome is not predetermined. Whether this transformation leads to shared prosperity or to concentrated wealth and widespread displacement will depend on decisions made now, by governments, corporations, institutions, and individuals.

I encourage you to read the Policy Statement in full. It addresses far more than job security. My focus here is narrower: the economic implications. On pages 3 and 4, the Policy Statement explains:

The Case for a New Industrial Policy. Society has navigated major technological transitions before, but not without real disruption and dislocation along the way. While those transitions ultimately created more prosperity, they required proactive political choices to ensure that growth translated into broader opportunity and greater security. For example, following the transition to the Industrial Age, the Progressive Era and the New Deal helped modernize the social contract for a world reshaped by electricity, the combustion engine, and mass production. They did so by building new public institutions, protections, and expectations about what a fair economy should provide, including labor protections, safety standards, social safety nets, and expanded access to education.

History shows that democratic societies can respond to technological upheaval with ambition: reimagining the social contract, mediating between capital and labor, and encouraging broad distribution of the benefits of technological progress while preserving pluralism, constitutional checks and balances, and freedom to innovate. The transition to superintelligence will require an even more ambitious form of industrial policy, one that reflects the ability of democratic societies to act collectively, at scale, to shape their economic future so that superintelligence benefits everyone. …

On this path to superintelligence, there are clear steps we need to take today. People are already concerned about what AI will mean for their lives—whether their jobs and families will be safe, and whether data centers will disrupt their communities and raise energy prices. AI data centers should pay their own way on energy so that households aren’t subsidizing them; and they should generate local jobs and tax revenue. Governments should implement common-sense AI regulation—not to entrench incumbents through regulatory capture but to protect children, mitigate national security risks, and encourage innovation.

OpenAI released a companion video the same day as the Policy Statement, titled Sam Altman on Building the Future of AI (“Video“). At 26:08, the discussion turns directly to jobs. Joshua Achiam, OpenAI’s Chief Futurist, addresses the issue candidly:

On getting workers involved in AI, I actually, I kind of want to back up and just acknowledge an elephant in the room, which is that a lot of workers are concerned about AI; they’re worried about what AI means for them. They are not immediately excited at the prospect of figuring out, all right, how are we going to use AI in our workplace? They’re thinking, oh my gosh, is the AI going to replace me?

The public is no longer satisfied with abstract reassurances. People want timelines. They want industry-specific forecasts. They want to know whether their job will still exist in five years. Both the Policy Statement and the Video point in the same direction: highly capable AI systems are coming quite soon, much faster than most expected.

A man and a humanoid robot work together at a cluttered desk surrounded by computer monitors displaying technological data and ominous messages about job eradication and human displacement.

A man and a robot working together on a computer circuit board in a high-tech office, with screens displaying medical and economic data, and a coffee cup on the table.

Better get it right Sam.

More Training Now for Job Security Tomorrow?

For many years my usual answer to the jobs question has been more training now. That answer may not cut it today for a majority of people, especially if AI advances too fast, too far. For instance, in Can AI Really Save the Future? A Lawyer’s Take on Sam Altman’s Optimistic Vision (Oct. 2024) I opined:

AI will create entirely new jobs. For instance, for lawyers, new jobs pertaining to AI regulations are emerging. AI will also change existing jobs for the better. It is already replacing the most boring parts of our work, leaving us to focus on the more rewarding and human aspects. Moreover, it is true that no worker will be replaced by an AI, they will be replaced by a human that knows how to use AI.

Now I am not so sure, and neither is Sam Altman. The prospect of superintelligence is no longer a distant future. It is a planning horizon.

To address the question of human employment in a world of increasingly powerful AI, an issue well beyond my unaided ability to resolve, I turn to a Panel of AI Experts. For this exercise, I use OpenAI-based models that I have fine-tuned for analysis across multiple disciplines. They are not superintelligent, but they are highly capable and broadly informed. They created a five AI-persona expert panel to try to answer these issues. The only persona I required is the “devil’s advocate” persona because I have found that AI type is indispensable to brainstorming exercises like this. I did not specify any other character, even the first character chosen, The “Centaur‘ Professional, although I must admit he sounds just like me.

An illustration depicting a central figure, representing 'Human in the Loop,' surrounded by various symbolic characters: a Centaur, a Devil's Advocate, a Sin-Eater, and the concept of 'Human Edge.' They are engaged in a digital environment filled with computers and data analytics visuals, emphasizing collaboration between humans and technology. — The Human in the Loop should remain in charge and verify AI work.

Voice 1: The “Centaur” Professional (The Hybrid Advocate)

Persona: The pragmatic professional who has fully integrated AI, but remains firmly in control. For background see my From Centaurs To Cyborgs: Our evolving relationship with generative AI (April 2024). Except for the citations that follow, all of the language from here to the Conclusion was written by the AIs, not me.

The Perspective: Let’s begin with a reality check. You’re more likely to lose your job to someone using AI than to AI itself. That single sentence cuts through most of the noise.

The fear of immediate, total automation misunderstands how work actually happens. We do not operate on smooth technological curves, we operate on what researchers call a “jagged frontier.” AI excels at certain tasks and fails at others, often unpredictably. This is why hybrid human-AI teams—Centaurs—consistently outperform both humans alone and AI alone. Recent research suggests improvements approaching 70% in certain knowledge-work domains. [See e.g., The New Stanford–Carnegie Study: Hybrid AI Teams Beat Fully Autonomous Agents by 68.7%. Also see research and reports of top expert teams in Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier (Working Paper 24-013, Harvard Business School, Sept. 2023) and my Navigating the AI Frontier (Oct. 2024).]

In law, AI can draft a brief in seconds. But it cannot sign it. It does not carry malpractice insurance. It does not stand before a judge. It cannot be sanctioned—or disbarred.

In medicine, AI may catch patterns a doctor misses. But patients do not sue algorithms—they sue physicians.

Sam Altman himself has described using AI to analyze medical data more effectively than his own doctor. Yet no serious observer concludes from this that doctors are obsolete. The conclusion is simpler:

Doctors who use AI will replace doctors who do not. The same applies across professions.

The future belongs to the Centaur—the professional who augments judgment with machine intelligence, but never abdicates responsibility.

Your job is not disappearing. The drudgery is.

As I explained in The Great AI Transition: From Tool to Teammate (June 2024), “the real shift is from doing the work to supervising it, humans move up the chain of responsibility, not out of the system.” [The AI hallucinated this article and cite, which obviously was supposed to refer to one of my articles. I am embarrassed to say that the title and quote sounded so plausible that I had to look it up to be sure. I then called the AI on this and it admitted to the hallucination and apologized.]

A professional in a suit stands in a courtroom with a circular holographic interface. The background features judicial elements like a gavel and a jury. The hologram includes icons for legal documents, checkmarks, and scales of justice, representing the integration of AI in legal practice. — The “Centaur” Professional (The Hybrid Advocate)

Voice 2: The “Sin-Eater” (AI Risk & Accountability Officer)

Persona: The human firewall—absorbing legal and ethical responsibility for AI outputs.

The Perspective: The Centaur is right—but incomplete. Because every gain in capability creates a parallel demand for accountability.

Wharton’s Ethan Mollick coined the term “Sin-Eater” to describe a new role: the human who vouches for AI-generated work and bears the consequences when it fails. That role is not theoretical—it is inevitable.

As AI systems scale from minutes to months-long projects, the need for verification, auditing, and compliance will explode. OpenAI’s own policy proposals emphasize the need for an “AI trust stack”—auditing regimes, validation systems, and human oversight at every layer.

And then there is cybersecurity. Our current software ecosystem is already vulnerable. AI will amplify both offense and defense—but offense often scales faster. Sam Altman has warned openly: AI will become extraordinarily good at identifying software vulnerabilities. That means bad actors will too.

This creates a massive new labor demand. Not for passive users—but for active defenders. We will need an army of human-AI teams to audit, test, and secure critical systems. This is not optional. It is civilizational maintenance.

The job of the future is not merely to generate output—it is to cross-examine the machine.

Side Note: Breaking Development

The Video at 13:18) includes the following warning by Sam Altman. This likely explains why the Sin Eater identified cybersecurity as a central issue, even though I did not prompt it:

“[J]ust take a few examples of the threats that we expect to be coming, cybersecurity is definitely going to become a huge issue. AI will be incredibly good at finding vulnerabilities in software. And I think the world will find that their software is much more brittle and much less secure than we thought. And, you know, humans just have limited capacity to find the exploits. It is not enough to say that, you know, one or two or three model providers are just going to make sure that their systems won’t do this because code is like, you know, the same thing that code is very useful to be good at, and being good at writing code can also help find security problems. And even if all of us somehow could prevent our models from ever being used for this, there will be open-source models coming soon.”

Just days before the April 6, 2026 Video, a human employee of Anthropic accidentally posted the source code of its most advanced, not yet released AI systems on a public site. Within minutes, the code was discovered, copied, and distributed globally before the mistake was corrected. Shortly thereafter, versions of the code were reportedly offered for sale on the dark web, effectively rendering it open source.Mayank Parmar, Claude Code source code accidentally leaked in NPM package (Bleeping Computer, 3/31/26). Wired reports in Security News This Week: Hackers Are Posting the Claude Code Leak With Bonus Malware (4/4/2026): “The US-Israel war with Iran careened into its second month this week, with Iran threatening to launch attacks against more than a dozen US companies.”

The lesson is immediate and sobering. The greatest vulnerabilities in advanced AI systems may not be technical, but human. Failures of supervision at leading AI companies could have catastrophic consequences. Humans and AI must verify each other in a continuous loop of security, accountability and quality control.

A digital illustration depicting a corporate office setting with two figures: one in a dark cloak representing 'The Sin-Eater' and another in a business suit symbolizing the 'AI Risk & Accountability Officer'. Surrounding them are visual elements like an AI Bias Map, Accountability Audit, and concepts of risk and reward, emphasizing themes of AI accountability and mitigation. — The “Sin-Eater” (AI Risk & Accountability Officer)

Voice 3: The “Startup-in-a-Box” Entrepreneur

Persona: The solo builder with the leverage of a 100-person company.

The Perspective: Why is the conversation so focused on saving existing jobs? We are on the verge of the largest expansion of individual capability in human history.

Sam Altman has spoken repeatedly about a future where one person can build what once required an entire company. AI agents will handle coding, marketing, accounting, logistics—everything that currently creates friction.

The barriers to entry are collapsing.

Today, a brilliant nurse or mechanic might never start a business—not because of lack of skill, but because of administrative overhead. Tomorrow, that overhead disappears.

This is the rise of the micro-entrepreneurial economy.

Access to powerful AI tools—what some call a “Right to AI”—may become as foundational as access to electricity. With it, millions can create, compete, and innovate independently.

Yes, large bureaucracies may shrink. But they will be replaced by networks of highly capable individuals.

The question is not just “Will I lose my job?” It is also: “What could I build if friction disappeared?”

A young entrepreneur interacts with a digital AI dashboard featuring various tools such as market trend predictors, legal compliance AI, and revenue forecasting. The office background shows a modern workspace with colleagues engaged in discussions. — The “Startup-in-a-Box” Entrepreneur

Voice 4: The “Human Edge” Advocate

Persona: The guardian of empathy, presence, and human connection.

The Perspective: The technologists talk about efficiency. But humans do not live on efficiency alone.

There is a category of value AI cannot replicate: being human with another human.

Josh Achiam of OpenAI described visiting a fully automated café. It worked perfectly. It was fast. It was efficient. nIt was also—his word—unfulfilling. He missed the human interaction.

This is the “Human Edge.”

As AI absorbs administrative and analytical burdens, the value of human-centered work will rise dramatically. Teaching, nursing, therapy, caregiving—these are not residual categories. They are foundational. Today, these professions are underpaid and overburdened. That is a policy failure—not a market inevitability.

If AI delivers the productivity gains promised, then society must redirect that surplus toward elevating human-centered roles. The OpenAI policy proposals explicitly call for this—training pipelines, wage support, and institutional investment.

The future of work is not less human. It is more human than ever.

A professional woman holding a tablet in a modern office setting, surrounded by glowing icons representing compassion, justice, and ethics, with 'hA' and 'HUMAN CORE' highlighted in the center. — The “Human Edge” Advocate

Voice 5: The Contrarian “Devil’s Advocate”

Persona: Skeptic. Realist. Immune to hype.

The Perspective: Let’s stop romanticizing. Disruption is coming—and it will be uneven, painful, and fast. Telling displaced workers to “become entrepreneurs” or “pivot to caregiving” is not a plan. It is a slogan. We need structural reform.

If AI concentrates wealth in capital rather than labor, then the tax system must adapt. That means shifting the burden toward capital gains, corporate profits, and possibly automated labor.

We must also decouple basic security from employment. Healthcare, retirement, and income stability cannot depend entirely on whether your job survives automation.

And yes—let’s talk about infrastructure. We have a decaying physical world and a fragile digital one. Meanwhile, AI companies are generating enormous wealth. That wealth must be reinvested.

A modern New Deal—focused on infrastructure, cybersecurity, and energy—is not just desirable. It is necessary.

This is not anti-capitalist. It is pro-stability.

An elderly businessman in a suit stands in a modern office setting, holding a digital tablet with a serious expression. He is surrounded by glowing symbols, including scales of justice, hands, and a devilish figure labeled 'Devil's Advocate.' The scene is framed by a circular neon border with 'hA' and 'The Contrarian View' inscribed. — The Contrarian “Devil’s Advocate”

Conclusion: Responsibility at the Edge of Superintelligence

This panel reveals a truth that resists simplification: the future of work in the age of AI is difficult to predict. At this point it could go either way.

Personally, I am now more inclined to agree with the curmudgeon Contrarian than the mini-me Hybrid Advocate. That is a change for me. It reflects a growing concern that the risks may be advancing faster than the benefits. The real question is whether we, and our institutions, can adapt quickly enough.

The practical advice is straightforward. Begin serious AI training now. At the same time, explore work where the human edge still matters. You may find not only greater security, but greater satisfaction.

Above all, hold the new centers of power, economic and technological, to their obligations. Stand for both human rights and progress. We should be able to do both. In today’s world, we have no choice. It is too dangerous to stand still.

Superintelligence may drive the engine of the future. But I continue to insist that humanity must remain firmly and responsibly at the wheel.

A business presentation scene featuring five diverse characters at a panel discussion. Each character represents a different role: a stern older man, a confident woman, a professional in a suit, a figure in a dark cloak, and a relaxed entrepreneur. Behind them, large screens display icons related to AI, risk management, and funding, suggesting a technology-focused theme.

Leave a Comment » | AI Ethics, AI Instruction, ChatGPT, Gemini AI, informaton, knowledge, Technology, wisdom | Tagged: economics, employment, jobs | Permalink
Posted by Ralph Losey

What People Want To Know About AI: Top 10 Curiosity Index (with interactive graphic)

March 18, 2026

Ralph Losey, March 18, 2026

A digital illustration of a brain with gears, surrounded by various topics related to artificial intelligence, including job security, data privacy, misinformation, and environmental impact. — Top Ten Information Needs about AI per Gemini research. All images by Ralph Losey using *Nano Banana 2,* except for the graphs by Gemini Pro.

Gemini 3.1 Pro Surprises: Synthesizing the Top 10 AI Questions of 2024–2026

I was recently struck by a capability in the pro version of Gemini that I hadn’t encountered before. Quite by accident, I discovered the model’s ability to do more than just scour the web for data. It can synthesize thousands of disparate data points, from workshop reports to tangential polls, to provide a coherent answer to a complex “meta” question.

My inquiry was specific: What do people actually want to know about AI? I wasn’t interested in usage statistics, but in conceptual gaps. When Gemini (and my own “trust but verify” follow-up) found no single poll on point, the AI pivoted. It inferred a top-ten ranking by analyzing the collective “curiosity” found across the web. The result is what Gemini called, perhaps with a smile, the “Top 10 Curiosity Index,” a list of the concepts that people are most “desperate to understand.“

A diverse group of professionals engaged in a brainstorming session in a modern office. Some are using smartphones while sitting around tables with laptops, and others are writing on whiteboards. The environment features brick walls and large windows, creating a collaborative atmosphere focused on AI topics. — Weekend Law Firm Study to Satisfy Top Ten Information Needs about AI.

From Synthesis to Software: Gemini’s Surprising Coding Capabilities

Beyond the data synthesis, Gemini 3.1 Pro surprised me by generating several hundred lines of custom code—largely unprompted—to facilitate sharing these findings. While I was aware of the Pro version’s coding reputation, I was unprepared for this level of sophistication. The AI didn’t just present the information; it built the visual infrastructure to host it, producing complex HTML and JavaScript in a matter of seconds.

The centerpiece of this technical feat is an interactive graph that allows readers to engage with the data directly. Gemini didn’t stop at the code; it acted as a technical consultant, guiding me through the WordPress installation and handling the inevitable troubleshooting with ease. The result is a level of user interactivity on my blog that I previously thought would require a dedicated developer.

Click on the ten bar graph to see analysis of each question.

AI Information Demand 2024-2026

An interactive analysis of what the public most wants explained about Artificial Intelligence. We bypassed *how* people use AI, focusing purely on what concepts they are most desperate to understand.

The Top 10 Curiosity Index

This section visualizes the definitive ranking of AI-related questions based on global search demand, forum discussions, and media inquiries. Interact with the chart: Click on any bar to instantly reveal a deep dive into why that specific question is driving so much interest.

Relative Popularity of AI Queries

Deep Dive Analysis

←

Select a topic from the chart to view detailed insights.

Thematic Breakdown of Demand

When we aggregate the specific questions, distinct macro-themes emerge. This categorizes the top 10 queries into four main domains to show where the center of gravity lies in public consciousness.

What Dominates the Conversation?

Static Form Presentation of the Top 10 Curiosity Index

A ranking of what the public is actively seeking to understand about AI, synthesized by Gemini 3.1 Pro from global search trends, forum discussions, and media inquiries. The words in this section are by Gemini.

1. How AI Thinks – 25%

How does AI actually ‘think’ or make decisions?
The ‘Black Box’ Enigma: Users are unsettled by outputs they cannot trace back to a logical process. They want analogies that bridge the gap between human reasoning and neural networks.

2. Job Security – 18%

Will AI take my job, and how do I prepare?
Economic Anxiety: The public is demanding highly practical, industry-specific explanations. People want to know the exact timeline of automation for their specific roles.

3. Data Privacy – 15%

How is my personal data being used to train AI?
The Privacy Paradox: Users want explained, in plain terms, whether their emails, private photos, or voice recordings are being scraped to train models.

4. Consciousness – 12%

Can AI develop consciousness or true emotions?
The Sentience Question: A large segment of the public is seeking a philosophical and technical breakdown of consciousness, questioning the line between simulated and real empathy.

5. Terminology – 9%

What is the difference between LLMs, Machine Learning, and GenAI?
Clearing the Jargon Fog: People want a foundational glossary that explains these terms without using more jargon.

6. Misinformation – 7%

How can we prevent AI from spreading misinformation?
Algorithmic Truth: The public wants to know how developers are addressing AI ‘hallucinations’ and what tools exist to verify synthetic text.

7. Copyright & IP – 5%

Who owns the copyright to AI-generated content?
IP Crisis: Creators and users are demanding legal clarity. If an AI trains on my art, am I owed royalties?

8. Environmental Impact – 4%

How much energy does AI consume?
Carbon Footprint: A growing niche is asking for the hidden environmental costs of cloud-based AI to be explained.

9. Prompting Skills – 3%

How do I effectively prompt an AI?
The ‘How-To’: Users want to understand the linguistic rules the AI prefers to generate better outcomes.

10. The Singularity – 2%

What happens when AI gets smarter than humans?
Superintelligence: The public wants to know if experts have a plan for containment if models surpass human cognitive abilities.

My Take: Bridging the Gap Between Vision and Inquiry

What struck me most about this data was the surprisingly low ranking of The Singularity and AGI. While my focus often rests on the profound, long-term implications of superintelligence, the index reveals a public currently focused on the immediate and negative. It is a classic case of the “here and now” overshadowing the “what’s next.”

A surreal illustration of a humanoid figure with tree-like branches and a galaxy swirling above, representing a fusion of nature and technology. The figure's chest is open, emitting light and data, while one hand holds a glowing pyramid with a question mark and leaves. — Image of a Singularity interpretation. *See Can AI Really Save the Future?*

Similarly, seeing Prompting Skills in second to last place in information needs with only 3% is disappointing. To me, this remains the critical lever for success with AI. This data doesn’t change my mission, but it certainly highlights the conceptual hurdles.

The others on the list and rankings were pretty much what I expected. They correspond to the types of questions I usually get when lecturing on AI.

Thematic Breakdown of the Information Demands

When we aggregate the specific questions, distinct macro-themes emerge. The following is Gemini’s categorization of the top 10 queries into four main domains. This is designed to show where the center of gravity lies in public consciousness.

What Dominates the Conversation?

1. Technical Mechanics:
Demystifying the ‘magic.’ People want the underlying architecture explained.

2. Socio-Economic:
Fear and planning regarding real-world consequences on careers and laws.

3. Ethics & Trust:
Concerns regarding data harvesting and the spread of unchecked bias.

4. Existential:
Philosophical inquiries regarding consciousness and humanity’s place.

A circular diagram divided into four segments representing different categories: Technical Mechanics (green), Socio-Economic (red), Ethics & Trust (blue), and Existential (gold).

Analysis of the Four Information Need Themes

The data confirms that people primarily want to understand the “how” of AI. This isn’t surprising, given that the major AI labs have been intentionally opaque. However, the landscape is shifting rapidly; as I noted in Breaking the AI Black Box: How DeepSeek’s Deep-Think Forced OpenAI’s Hand (Feb. 2025), the competition is finally forcing a level of transparency. Yet, even when pressed, top scientists admit they do not fully understand the internal mechanics of these models. This sentiment was echoed in Dario Amodei Warns of the Danger of Black Box AI that No One Understands (May 2025).

A digital illustration representing artificial intelligence, with a central brain surrounded by icons symbolizing various concepts like security, collaboration, education, creativity, law, sustainability, and data analysis. — How Does AI Work? Better learn the basics.

The second “hot zone” is socio-economic. The anxiety here is well-founded. The financial and environmental costs are staggering—the power consumption of modern AI is almost incomprehensible when you consider that the human brain operates on a mere 200 watts. As reported in AI Is Eating Data Center Power Demand—and It’s Only Getting Worse (May 2025, Wired), the strain on our infrastructure is only getting worse.

An infographic illustrating the impact of AI on various sectors, with icons representing finance, law, healthcare, technology, and automation around a central globe. — Many Socio Economic Concerns Are Well Founded.

Regarding jobs, history shows a pattern: initial displacement followed by a surge in new roles. While many remain skeptical, I lean toward the optimism of voices like Wharton Professor Ethan Mollick, who predicts a new era of human-centric roles, including “Sin-Eaters” tasked with managing AI errors. Demonstration by analysis of an article predicting new jobs created by AI (July 2025). We must also acknowledge a historical first: this is the first revolutionary technology made freely available to the masses from day one, not just an elite few. This accessibility should make retraining easier, but whether the displaced will successfully pivot remains to be seen.

An imaginative scene depicting creativity and technology, featuring people engaged in various activities such as art, music, education, and agriculture. Key elements include a woman holding a key, a child being guided, individuals painting and working on laptops, and a drone hovering over a colorful field. — New Types of Meaningful Work Emerge.

Finally, “Ethics and Trust” holds a strong third place. In the legal world, “Trust but Verify” has become the mantra. Whether it’s identifying the Seven Cardinal Dangers or learning to Cross-Examine Your AI to cure hallucinations, these are the questions that dominate my lectures. With AI companies largely self-regulating, the burden of verification remains firmly on the user.

A digital illustration depicting various concepts related to artificial intelligence, data security, and analysis. Central to the image is a globe surrounded by icons, including robotic hands, diverse people, data analytics, and a lockbox symbolizing security, with arrows connecting these elements. — There is much more to AI Ethics and Trust than Verification. Lawyers are needed here.

As for the “Existential” category—the lowest ranked—the fear of AI consciousness is certainly fun to talk about, but I find it largely unfounded. See From Ships to Silicon: Personhood and Evidence in the Age of AI. The real existential threat is not a sentient machine, but human users and over-delegation to AI, including critical “kill decisions.” As Jensen Huang (NVIDIA) aptly put it, we must keep a human in the loop to prevent AI from self-evolving “out in the wild” without oversight. Jensen Huang’s Life and Company – NVIDIA (Dec. 2023).

A digital illustration showing a globe with interconnected graphics related to artificial intelligence (AI), including a brain, a heart on a scale, various professionals, and technological elements. — Identifying and preventing real existential risks.

Conclusion

The “Curiosity Index” provides a rare look into the collective mind of a society in transition. It shows us that while the experts are looking at the horizon, the public is still trying to find its footing on the ground. My goal remains unchanged: to lead you through the “jargon fog” and past the conceptual hurdles of the present so that you are prepared for the “what’s next.” Whether you are a lawyer verifying an AI-generated brief or a professional worried about your role, remember that the most powerful tool in this new era isn’t the AI itself, it’s your ability to ask the right questions and maintain your place as the “human in the loop.”