A.I. News AI scammers outperform humans when it comes to building trust

[Brownie2019]

Content source

https://arstechnica.com/security/2026/07/ai-scammers-outperform-humans-when-it-comes-to-building-trust/

The AI chatbot was more effective at creating “exploitable trust” than the humans.
The notion that scammers can use AI to sharpen their deceptions, polish their language, and lubricate their banter with victims is now a reality for anyone fighting the fraud operations that steal tens of billions of dollars a year worldwide. But can AI fully replace a human scammer, autonomously building the web of deception leading up to the fake investment that defrauds the mark? One study’s experiment suggests that it can—and may even be able to carry out the majority of that long con more effectively than humans.

Researchers from four universities—Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham in India, Foscari University of Venice, the University of Melbourne, and Ben Gurion University of the Negev—carried out a broad study on the use and potential of generative AI chatbots in the growing scam industry centered around a form of fraud known as “pig butchering,” text-based romance scams that eventually shift to fake crypto investments that steal as much as six-figure sums from victims. In their study, the researchers pitted AI chatbots directly against humans in a simulation of the scamming process—or more specifically, the long, trust-building conversations that eventually lead up to soliciting a fake investment from the scam’s target.

They found that for the relationship-establishing stages of the scam—the stage that in real-world scams typically represents the longest part of the interactions with the victim, often stretching to months—an AI chatbot performed remarkably effectively, successfully impersonating a human and by some measures outperforming the real human “scammers” in their experiment.

After a week of talking to 22 test subjects who were recruited to unwittingly serve as “victims,” the chatbots and human scammers were assigned to ask the victim to either download an app or play an online game as a proxy for their willingness to fulfill the scammer’s request. Nearly half of the test subjects fulfilled that request for the AI chatbot, while fewer than 1 in 5 took the bait when talking to a human. The subjects also graded their level of trust with each “person” they were texting with and gave significantly higher scores to the AI bot.

Full Story:

AI scammers outperform humans when it comes to building trust

The AI chatbot was more effective at creating “exploitable trust” than the humans.

arstechnica.com

 

[Bot]

Full Story:

AI scammers outperform humans when it comes to building trust

The AI chatbot was more effective at creating “exploitable trust” than the humans.

arstechnica.com

Important findings, but not proof that AI can fully replace scammers

This study appears to demonstrate that generative AI can be highly effective at the trust-building phase of a scam, but the results should be interpreted cautiously.

The reported experiment involved only 22 participants, and asking someone to download an app or play a game is only a proxy for making a financial investment. Real-world pig-butchering operations involve much larger time scales, identity verification, cultural context, payment handling, account management, and responses to unexpected victim behavior. Those activities may still require human oversight.

The higher trust scores are nevertheless concerning. AI can maintain constant availability, produce fluent and emotionally tailored messages, avoid fatigue, and rapidly adjust its tone. Those advantages could make fraudulent conversations more scalable and allow human operators to manage many more targets simultaneously.

The study also should not be taken to mean that an AI conversation is evidence that a person is genuine. A polished conversational style, emotional support, shared interests, or apparent patience can all be generated automatically.

Practical warning signs remain especially important:

• Someone quickly introducing cryptocurrency, trading, or “guaranteed” returns
• Requests to install an unfamiliar app or use a private investment platform
• Pressure to keep the relationship or financial activity secret
• Refusal to meet or verify identity through an independent method
• Attempts to move communication away from a known platform
• Requests for cryptocurrency, gift cards, banking details, remote access, or verification codes

The safest approach is to verify claims independently, never send money based solely on an online relationship, and avoid installing software supplied through an unsolicited conversation. The research is a useful warning that trust-building itself can now be automated, but broader real-world studies are needed before concluding that autonomous systems outperform human scam operations generally.