AI HAS increasingly come to dominate our everyday life. From text translations and drafting documents to preparing tax returns and taking medical decisions, AI is becoming a trustworthy assistant. Nevertheless, while AI assists in output, it also inculcates unethical behaviour. People are prone to engaging in fraudulent behaviour when a large language model does their task; in other words, as opposed to human helpers who might be caught in a moral dilemma, LLMs are inclined to obey instructions, which can promote cheating, with no questions asked.
Outsourcing misconduct to AI diminishes human conscientiousness, which makes it easy to engage in dishonest acts, without realising how personal integrity is being corroded. This risk must be noted amid the rapid rise of ‘agentic’ AI systems.
Agentic AI has been described as a sophisticated form of AI, which can set objectives and undertake organisational tasks with minimal human interaction. In contrast, traditional AI predominantly analyses a set of given instructions. Agentic AI is based on the implementation of mediators that utilise LLMs as a ‘brain’ to execute activities that go beyond content creation by fulfilling requirements to accomplish higher-level objectives. Generative AI is used to generate marketing resources, while agentic AI works to install these constituents, map their performance and alter marketing strategies based on outcomes.
The racism inherent in LLMs may not be very visible, but the model still reacts adversely to African American English commands. When LLMs are used for decision-making, such hidden racism could adversely affect people using this lingua franca. Various language models have exhibited biased conduct. For example, the LLM GPT produces human typecasts by creating overly ferocious text when Muslims are referenced. Researchers argue that such unfair behaviour is predictable based on the resources on which LLMs are trained. These LLMs are rife with stereotypes about minority groups, which enable the latter’s exclusion from the benefits of language tools.
Is AI robbing us of honest conduct?
Human nature can allow individuals to manipulate uncertainty to offset responsibilities, but AI, built to resolve uncertainty, operates with a swiftness that lacks the reflection or judgement that humans can exercise. There is work ongoing in AI to mimic feelings, such as compassion or remorse. But at the core, there are no ethical curbs on AI. In other words, although an AI model might convey concern, it is capable of indulging in immoral behaviour in a blink.
Independent AI agents throughout the world face socio-technological challenges that are in dire need of pre-emptive oversight. Funnelling the progress of AI agents towards socially valuable products requires certain key steps to be taken, the most important of which is to invest in meaningful evaluation methods. This involves steering long-term research projects to evaluate the effects of protracted collaboration with AI agents.
Our ability to validate autonomous behaviour must align with developments in the proficiencies of AI agents, if the latter are to be of substantial use in the real world. This necessitates the creation of safeguards that restrict AI’s malicious use; the safeguards would include secure permission systems. Downstream implementation strategies include reliable sample programmes to reveal liabilities under actual conditions. Commercial systems for reporting issues, learning from mistakes, creating ecosystems and verifying agent safety are critical.
The foundational architecture and infrastructure of AI agents are still being woven. The question of how AI and humans can flourish in a combined ethical space is more important than what AI can be barred from achieving. In its migration from equipment to semi-autonomous means, AI creates an environment in which values, objectives and obligations are persistently reinvigorated. These spheres could become generative zones for moral awakening, neither solely human nor totally mechanical.
This revolution requires an ethical architecture that can tolerate uncertainty, promote cultural diversity and introduce deliberate pauses before engagement. Such pauses can help reinstate human reflection before decision-making. AI reflects not only our abilities but also our moral tendencies, our acceptance of vagueness and our disposition to delegate distress. Sustaining human uprightness in the age of smart agents means understanding how we outline the conduct of AI and how it shapes us.
The writer is an assistant professor at the West Virginia University School of Medicine.
Published in Dawn, February 10th, 2026