Intelligent Machines Need Honest Human Beings

The world has changed its form. Cities have stretched into networks, markets have moved through algorithms, communication has become instant, and knowledge has passed from libraries to screens. Human beings have learned to intervene in the genome, map the brain, send machines to other planets, and create systems that write, calculate, predict, and decide at a speed that would have seemed unthinkable only a few generations ago.

Yet beneath this new form of the world, human beings still carry the same inner fractures. The same greed, the same arrogance, the same need for recognition, the same ease with self-deception, the same desire to dress self-interest in fine words. Technology has changed the scale of human action, but not automatically its quality. It has made human beings more powerful, faster, more interconnected. It has not necessarily made them more just.

This is the great moral problem of our age. We have created tools that can influence entire societies, yet we continue to handle them with human motives that have not changed very much since antiquity. Ambition, fear, vanity, greed, the need to dominate, the desire for image, and the avoidance of responsibility did not disappear because the world became digital. They simply found new means of expression.

Artificial intelligence makes this truth clearer. An intelligent machine can analyse data, detect patterns, produce texts, create images, assist in medicine, research, education, and administration. It can become a tool of remarkable progress. Yet the same power can be used for deception, surveillance, manipulation, the automation of injustice, and the concentration of power in hands that are not sufficiently accountable.

The critical point does not lie only in the machine. It lies in the human being who trains it, controls it, sells it, applies it, presents it as objective, hides it behind technical language, and ultimately decides which use of it is considered acceptable. The machine does not introduce ethics into the world by itself. Ethics enters through the human decisions that surround it.

Heraclitus wrote: “Ἦθος ἀνθρώπῳ δαίμων.” A person’s character is their fate. The phrase seems to come from far away, yet it speaks with precision to the present. The fate of a society is not judged only by the intelligence of its tools. It is judged by the character of the people who use them. An advanced system in the hands of people without integrity does not produce civilisation. It produces more efficient forms of injustice.

Today we speak constantly of innovation. The word has become almost ritualistic. Companies, governments, universities, organisations, politicians, and advertisers all use it. Every new platform, every new product, every new model is presented as a step towards the future. Yet we rarely ask with the same persistence what kind of human being this future serves and what kind of human being it produces. A world that optimises everything except its character risks becoming impressive on the surface and impoverished in depth.

Information overload is a clear example. We do not live in an age of silence. We live in an age of endless speech. Every event immediately becomes commentary, every comment becomes conflict, every conflict becomes content. Information does not simply reach the human being. It surrounds him. It stimulates him, exhausts him, angers him, confirms him, distracts him. Within this continuous flow, the distinction between what is true and what is merely impressive becomes increasingly difficult.

The most dangerous thing is not that people are always deceived through ignorance. Often they are deceived through desire. They want to believe something because it suits them, because it vindicates them, because it belongs to their group, because it gives them an enemy, because it removes the need to examine themselves. Algorithms did not create this weakness. They exploited it. They measured it, organised it, and commercialised it.

Public life is therefore filled with certainties without depth. People who have not read enough speak as though they know everything. People who have never doubted themselves demand that everyone trust their judgement. People who cannot bear complexity retreat into slogans. The speed of the age does not always leave room for maturity. It produces immediate reaction, but not necessarily thought.

In this environment, ethics is not a decorative concept. It is not a chapter in a corporate handbook or a fine word in a public speech. It is the practical force that limits arbitrariness when no one is watching. It is the inner resistance against the easy lie, the convenient half-truth, the well-crafted excuse, the abuse that might pass unnoticed. It is what remains when external control is absent.

The modern world has many mechanisms of compliance, but less inner discipline. It has policies, regulations, procedures, audits, frameworks, committees, and statements of values. All these are necessary. Yet they are not enough when people learn to bypass them, use them as alibis, or invoke them without believing in them. The language of ethics can easily become a tool of concealment when it is not accompanied by character.

We see this in workplaces where meritocracy is frequently mentioned, while mediocrity is protected when it proves useful. We see it in organisations that speak of transparency, while real decisions are made in closed rooms. We see it in public debates where truth gives way to strategic communication. We see it in technology too, when the word “innovation” is used to avoid questions about power, responsibility, and consequences.

The larger a system becomes, the greater its moral weight. A small mistake may affect a few people. A mistake embedded in a global digital system can affect millions. A bias that might once have remained inside an office can now pass into a model, a platform, or an automated decision-making mechanism. Injustice becomes harder to see when it acquires a technical form. It does not shout. It does not get angry. It does not always look like arbitrariness. Sometimes it appears as a neutral result.

That is why intelligent machines require more honest human beings. Not only more intelligent ones. Not only more qualified ones. More honest ones. People who can tell the truth even when it does not serve them. People who can recognise error before it becomes harm. People who do not use complexity as a refuge from responsibility. People who understand that the question “Can we do it?” is never enough without the question “What will it cause?”

Our age needs a more mature understanding of progress. Progress cannot be measured only in speed, productivity, capability, and scale. It must also be measured in the quality of human life, in justice, in trust, in truth, and in responsibility. Otherwise we produce a world that knows how to function better, but not necessarily how to live better.

The human being is the weak point of his greatest achievements. Not because he is incapable, but because he is divided. He can create and destroy with the same hand. Heal and exploit. Seek truth and prefer lies when they suit him. Speak of the common good while serving private interest. This fracture is not abolished by technology. It is transferred to a larger scale.

This is where the value of ancient wisdom lies. We do not need to turn it into a museum-piece invocation, nor load the present with aphorisms. It is enough to understand that earlier civilisations saw clearly something that remains true: human beings may change their tools, cities, institutions, and languages, but their inner struggle returns in a new form in every age. Hubris, vanity, greed, the blindness of power, and the need for self-restraint do not belong to the past. They circulate today under modern names.

If we wish to speak seriously about the future, then we must speak seriously about the human being. Not as a user, customer, voter, productive unit, or set of data. As a moral being who can rise to the level of his power or be crushed by it. Artificial intelligence, biotechnologies, global networks, and automated infrastructures do not free us from this need. They make it urgent.

The world has changed its form, but human beings still carry the same inner fractures. This must be the starting point of every serious discussion about progress. Intelligent machines will not correct the dishonest human being by themselves. They will give him stronger means. That is why the question of the future is not only technological. It is deeply moral.

The future will not be judged by whether machines become intelligent enough. It will be judged by whether human beings become honest enough to use them.

Bibliographical and Indicative References

Heraclitus, fragment B119: “Ἦθος ἀνθρώπῳ δαίμων.”

UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, 2021.

OECD, OECD AI Principles, originally adopted in 2019 and revised in 2024.

European Union, Artificial Intelligence Act, 2024.

Zuboff, Shoshana, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, PublicAffairs, 2019.

O’Neil, Cathy, Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy, Crown, 2016.

Noble, Safiya Umoja, Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, NYU Press, 2018.

Kozyreva, Anastasia, Lewandowsky, Stephan, and Hertwig, Ralph, “Citizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges With Cognitive Tools,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2020.

Pennycook, Gordon, and Rand, David G., “The Psychology of Fake News,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2021.

Floridi, Luciano, and Cowls, Josh, “A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society,” Harvard Data Science Review, 2019.

 

 

Idea Theft in the Workplace: Profiles, Impacts, and Countermeasures

“Idea theft,” or the appropriation of someone else’s idea, in the workplace refers to the practice whereby a person deliberately attributes to themselves the authorship of an idea, proposal, or piece of work that belongs to someone else, without giving due recognition. In other words, it is the unjustified claiming of another person’s contribution as one’s own. This often shows up in meetings or collaborative projects when an employee presents an idea that was first proposed by a colleague, receives the credit, and fails to mention the real originator. Although the phenomenon is well known in everyday business life, until recently it had not been studied as a distinct topic in the scientific literature and was usually treated as part of workplace bullying or broader toxic behaviour. More recent research, however, documents that idea theft is a distinct form of workplace misconduct and that it is particularly widespread. In studies involving more than 1,500 employees, 91% of participants reported that they had been victims, eyewitnesses, or even perpetrators of idea theft, while 87% had personally experienced having their work appropriated. This suggests that the practice occurs far more often than many would expect and constitutes a real problem for organisations. Moreover, incidents are often perceived by victims as intentional and can have significant consequences, even when the perpetrator claims there was no intent.

 

A key question is what kinds of people are more likely to engage in idea theft. Research in organisational psychology links certain personality traits, especially those associated with the so-called “Dark Triad,” to a higher likelihood of appropriating others’ intellectual work. Such individuals tend to show low empathy, a heightened sense of entitlement, and an instrumental view of other people, all of which facilitate unethical conduct for personal gain. Three broad profiles are commonly discussed. The first is narcissism. Narcissistic personalities are marked by an inflated ego, a need for admiration, and a sense that they “deserve everything.” In the workplace, a narcissistic person is primarily concerned with self-promotion and often has little hesitation about taking credit for others’ work in order to enhance their status. Empirical evidence indicates that people high in narcissism show weaker moral restraint and are more willing to lie, cheat, and steal compared with less narcissistic colleagues. A narcissistic employee may claim authorship of a successful idea even if it was not theirs, sincerely believing they deserve the reward. As a Cornell analysis has noted, narcissists often appropriate credit for others’ ideas and results, typically attributing success to themselves while deflecting responsibility when things go wrong.

The second profile is Machiavellianism. Machiavellians are described as highly cynical and manipulative types who operate with cold calculation to achieve their goals. An employee with Machiavellian traits is likely to view idea theft as a strategic tactic for advancement. Such individuals systematically amplify their own contribution and downplay others’, positioning themselves as the “brains” behind every team success. For example, a manager with these tendencies might present a project to senior leadership as their own achievement, omitting the fact that the original concept or the resolution of a critical problem came from a member of their team. The lack of moral constraints typical of Machiavellians, namely their willingness to deceive and exploit others for personal benefit, means they have little hesitation about appropriating colleagues’ intellectual work when they believe that “the end justifies the means.”

The third profile concerns low empathy and psychopathic tendencies. This category includes personalities marked by a pronounced lack of emotional empathy and remorse, traits often seen in individuals with psychopathic tendencies. Such employees feel little guilt when they harm others or violate rules, which makes them more prone to antisocial actions at work. Studies indicate that individuals who fall within the “Dark Triad,” narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, are characterised by an ability to lie, mislead, and manipulate without remorse. It is therefore unsurprising that they show a greater inclination toward fraud, theft, and abuse within organisations. Research has also found that people with these dark traits are more likely to copy, falsify work, or appropriate outcomes that do not belong to them. A total lack of empathy means such individuals do not reflect on the fact that “stealing” a colleague’s idea may wrong that person or damage team morale. They see only their own benefit.

Whether idea theft will flourish or be contained within an organisation depends largely on the culture and practices promoted by leadership. Indifferent or ineffective management can, often unintentionally, allow the phenomenon to spread, whereas leadership that dares to address it directly can discourage it. According to experts, organisational culture and the norms set by management strongly shape the frequency with which idea appropriation occurs. If such behaviour is tolerated or, worse, indirectly rewarded by leadership, it becomes part of “normality” and can become so deeply embedded that it later becomes difficult to change. For example, in some highly competitive workplaces where only the final outcome matters, managers may overlook who first had the idea as long as the work gets completed. In doing so, however, they send the message that appropriating others’ work is acceptable, establishing a vicious cycle of missing recognition.

Likewise, leadership inaction or complicity leaves victims without support or voice. Many employees hesitate to report that someone “stole” their idea, especially if the perpetrator is their supervisor, for fear they will be targeted or punished for daring to claim ownership of their work. In a culture where leadership does not clearly recognise each person’s contribution, employees learn that it is pointless to complain when they are wronged. Poor management may also mean that supervisors themselves appropriate their team’s ideas. This not only constitutes direct theft of intellectual work but also creates a powerful disincentive for employees to share new proposals, because they know that in the end “the boss will take all the glory.” In other words, when leadership fails to prevent the problem, or becomes part of it, trust in the evaluation and reward system is eroded. By contrast, in organisations where leaders set an example by giving credit where it is due, idea appropriation is treated as an unacceptable deviation and is marginalised.

Idea theft is not merely an ethical lapse. It has very serious consequences for the smooth functioning and innovative capacity of a business. Since ideas and knowledge are critical resources, anything that undermines knowledge flow within an organisation can cause major harm. Researchers warn that appropriating intellectual work is a uniquely damaging form of deviant behaviour that erodes trust and employee morale, putting at risk the success of the company’s knowledge management initiatives. Put simply, when people fear their ideas will be “stolen,” they stop sharing their knowledge openly, and collaboration and innovation are blocked.

One of the most immediate effects is that victims of idea theft become cautious and protective of their work. More than half of employees who have experienced such incidents report that afterwards they avoided sharing information or knowledge, deliberately adopting silence or a defensive stance. They often choose silence in meetings, do not propose new ideas or solutions, and may even hide information and know-how, fearing that if they contribute, their authorship will be “snatched” again. These proactive defensive reactions fall under what experts call knowledge hiding and can paralyse team creativity. As Professor David Zweig describes, the experience of not receiving credit for your own idea can “burn” you and then make you unwilling to share others in the future, creating a toxic environment where information does not flow. This phenomenon “kills” the open exchange of viewpoints that is necessary for innovation, leading teams to stagnate in sterile silos rather than collaborate creatively.

At the same time, psychological safety is shaken, meaning employees’ sense that they can take risks and speak up without fear. Idea theft undermines psychological safety in two ways. First, the victim feels wronged and exposed, especially if they cannot protest. Second, everyone else observes that initiative may be punished rather than rewarded. Thus a climate forms where employees do not feel safe to share thoughts or take initiative, fearing either that their idea will be taken or that they will be labelled “difficult” if they demand recognition. This severely undermines team learning and experimentation, discouraging any behaviour beyond what is strictly prescribed.

The negative consequences do not stop there. They extend to productivity and talent retention. When employees feel that their efforts are not recognised, or worse, that others are taking them, morale drops sharply. Job satisfaction declines and many begin to disengage. They may either work less intensely, thinking “why try, since I won’t get the credit anyway,” or they may engage in retaliatory behaviours that harm team performance. Research shows that those who have been “burned” by idea theft are more likely to engage in counterproductive work behaviours, such as disparaging colleagues, refusing help, or sabotaging collaborations, in response to the injustice they experienced. In the long term, a workplace where such practices are tolerated leads to higher turnover. Capable employees, frustrated by the absence of fairness, choose to leave for healthier environments. This not only creates knowledge gaps and rehiring costs but also damages the organisation’s reputation. If it becomes known that a company does not protect creators and leaves “idea thieves” unpunished, it will struggle to attract and retain top talent. Overall, idea theft undermines innovation, lowers productivity through reduced engagement and cooperation, and destroys trust, a core component of psychological safety at work.

Given the seriousness of the issue, it is crucial that organisations take specific measures to prevent or address the appropriation of others’ intellectual work. Evidence-based practices and recommendations from studies include, first, recognising the problem and cultivating a culture of transparency. The first step is for management itself to acknowledge openly that idea theft exists and to declare zero tolerance for it. Leaders should encourage employees to speak up when they see such incidents, following the simple logic “if you see something, say something.” Creating safe channels of communication, for example anonymous reporting or open discussions in meetings, increases visibility and helps prevent cover-ups. When employees feel that management will support them if they report appropriation, they are more likely to do so, preventing the normalisation of the behaviour.

Second, there must be an emphasis on giving credit and recognition. Leaders and supervisors should actively assign credit to the right people, providing public recognition for employees’ ideas and work. As experts note, nothing kills workplace motivation more than having one’s contribution go unrecognised. Managers should therefore consciously say, for example, “this idea was proposed by team X,” or “I want to highlight A’s contribution to developing this solution.” This model of leadership accountability shapes behavioural norms and shows everyone that reward comes with a collaborative spirit and respect for intellectual authorship. Over time, such top-down behaviour reduces the likelihood that employees will hide their ideas out of fear, because they know they will receive recognition for what they contribute.

Third, a key organisational lever for change is the reward system and, in particular, favouring team rewards rather than purely individual ones. If evaluation and bonuses are based solely on individual “wins,” employees are incentivised to claim personal credit even for collective work. Experts recommend revising reward structures so that team successes and collaborative performance are rewarded. This reduces the perceived need for appropriation, because the collective outcome is shared and there is no “zero-sum game” over who gets the glory. Recent studies explicitly recommend that organisations focus more on team success than individual success in order to reduce incentives to claim exclusive recognition. In addition, when evaluations are conducted, it is helpful to request 360-degree feedback, meaning evaluation from colleagues, subordinates, and supervisors, so that it becomes clearer whether someone repeatedly absorbs others’ work or, conversely, contributes in a team-oriented way.

Fourth, documentation and idea-protection structures can be useful. Some companies adopt mechanisms to document authorship of ideas inside the organisation. For instance, an internal system may allow employees to submit new proposals with a timestamp and description. If a dispute later arises, it becomes clear who submitted the idea first. Similarly, keeping meeting minutes that record who proposed what can deter would-be thieves. While such measures do not eliminate the phenomenon on their own, they provide a level of transparency that makes appropriation harder to carry out unnoticed.

Fifth, training and role modelling matter. Organisations can invest in leadership training and awareness-building around the ethics of recognition. Managers should be trained to identify and condemn idea theft behaviours in their teams. Through seminars or workshops on psychological safety and teamwork, the value of each member and the importance of crediting ideas to the right people can be emphasised. The visibility of positive role models, for example leaders who earn respect because they always acknowledge the contributions of their teams, also works as a powerful example. Leadership should consistently demonstrate that it values originality and collaboration, not political showmanship at others’ expense.

In summary, idea theft in the workplace is a multifaceted problem. It has roots in individual characters with low ethics and high ego, but it flourishes only in environments that permit it or ignore it. Its effects are deep. It strikes innovation, erodes trust, and reduces performance. Fortunately, international research and organisational experience point the way forward. A culture of fairness and recognition, leadership that sets the right example, and structures that support cooperation are essential. With such measures, businesses can protect their most valuable asset, their people and their ideas, ensuring an environment where creativity is rewarded rather than appropriated.

Sources

1. David Zweig et al., Journal of Knowledge Management (2025). Presentation of the concept of “knowledge theft” and findings on its prevalence.

2. Phys.org (University of Toronto). “Stealing credit for co-workers’ ideas and work hurts a critical organizational resource” (2025).

3. Canadian HR Reporter. “When ideas are stolen: how HR should handle ‘pervasive’ knowledge theft” (2025).

4. Charles O’Reilly III and Bernadette Doerr. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol.154 (2020). “Conceit and deceit: Lying, cheating, and stealing among grandiose narcissists.”

5. Cornell Chronicle. “Workplace narcissists can promote creativity but may steal the credit” (2010).

6. Megan F. Hess. “The Fyre Fraud: Exploring the Dark Triad Personality,” Case Study (2022).

7. LinkedIn (Subhashish Roy). “The Office Machiavellian: Why Credit-Stealing Colleagues Are Kryptonite to Your Company’s Success” (2024).

8. AACSB Insights. “Research Roundup: My Work, Your Name, Our Breakdown” (April 2025).