In the vast spectrum of creatureness, deception stands out as a remarkable and complex element, ranging from subtle camouflage to purposeful verbal lying. While deception has been often considered to be a unique element of human cognition, its presence in the realm of artificial creatures calls for a reevaluation of the boundaries of this phenomenon.

At its core, deception involves the concealment or distortion of truth, often with the intent to manipulate perceptions or outcomes (Kneer, 2021). In the natural world, animals employ various tactics such as mimicry and camouflage to deceive predators or prey. However, the human experience of deception extends beyond mere survival instincts and is intertwined with social interaction and cognition (Sharkey and Sharkey, 2021). Humans possess the ability to deceive consciously, accompanied by physiological responses such as increased heart and respiratory rate and pupil dilation. These nuanced signals add layers of complexity to the act of deception, making it difficult to define when a creature would be considered deceiving.

Artificial creatures do not possess the ability to convey messages through physiological changes as respiratory rate and can therefore challenge the traditional understanding of deception. Can a robot be considered deceptive if it lacks the physiological cues associated with lying? Wallach and Allen (2009) argue that any ability for artificial creatures to mimic human social gestures constitutes a form of deception. Matthias (2015) further contends that artificial creatures displaying false mental or emotional capabilities is a kind of deception that can mislead users and foster misplaced trust. Some examples below show this complexity of defining deception.

These two artificial creatures exemplify how humans can perceive deception in artificial creatures without any physiological signs. However, without knowing the truth it is nearly impossible to state whether the creatures are lying or not. This raises questions about the nature of trust and authenticity. Therefore, considering these examples, my own artificial creature would embody the essence of deception broader than just false statements. It would show physiological signs of deceit as well, such as facial expressions and intonation, to clearly convey that the statements told are false. The creation of this creature would shine light on the complexities of artificial deception.

In conclusion, the exploration of deception in both natural and artificial creatures shines light on the interplay between perception, intention, and authenticity. As the complexities of artificial deception are discovered, we are forced to think about the nature of trust and the signs of transparency in our interactions with artificial creatures.