The Fake Recruiter Is Only the Tip of the AI Iceberg
On a regular basis, I’ve been receiving LinkedIn messages from recruiters representing supposed “West Coast startups”—or sometimes one in Asia—focused on AI technology planning or governance. The messages vary slightly and come from legitimate-looking LinkedIn member accounts, but they share a common theme: a startup seeking strategic consulting, flexible hours, and remote work—all usually appealing to an independent consultant like me.
The inquiry makes it sound as though the recruiter has read my website or résumé, or at least my LinkedIn profile, and wants to set up an interview for some sort of senior advisory position. It all sounds legitimate until the recruiter asks for my contact information, often a Signal address. I tell the person to check my profile and send the details by email from a company account so I have an official domain and identity to research.
That usually ends the conversation. A little research suggests that, despite the personalization, these inquiries are scams. I went down this path once and wasted my time. I now give the following response when I receive this type of inquiry through LinkedIn:
“Thank you for contacting me. Before scheduling a conversation, please email the company name, website, position description, and your contact information from your company email address. I do not conduct initial business discussions through Signal, WhatsApp, or Telegram. My email address is available on my LinkedIn profile and on my public website. Thank you.”
For a time, I frequently received LinkedIn connection requests from obviously fake accounts, often accompanied by a photo of an attractive young woman. Those were easy to spot, and their frequency has subsided. These “West Coast startup” inquiries are more sophisticated. They appear to be crafted from information in my profile, website, or writings about AI governance. (For all I know, some may be based on website scraping that originates in Singapore.)
I admit that this most recent LinkedIn inquiry made me curious. The goal was to set up a video interview after we exchanged details through Signal. I suspect even the interviewer might have been synthetic.
The larger issue is how easily text, audio, and video interactions can now be synthesized in support of scams involving cryptocurrency, advance fees, identity-document collection disguised as onboarding, or simply extracting hours of unpaid “advisory” intelligence.
Equally serious is the reality that ANY public communication can be synthetic. This includes unmoderated anonymous comments in online publications (see Would Discouraging Anonymous Commenting Reduce the Spread of Misinformation?) and messages sent to elected officials. If I email a member of Congress about a public issue, for example, how does that person know it is legitimate?
All this leads to the question, “How should AI be regulated?” Call me skeptical. I use AI tools regularly and have often described that process on this website. I think I have a reasonable idea of how they work, and I am beginning to develop my own “rules of the road,” at least for uses involving the creation or manipulation of intellectual property.
But I seriously doubt that many of our elected officials have comparable familiarity, as suggested by the recent Axios article An Aging Congress Attempts to Regulate AI Without Using It. As a baby boomer myself, I am not convinced that age perfectly predicts AI competence. Still, I hope our elected officials have competent staff advising them!
Copyright © 2026 by Dennis D. McDonald. The graphic was generated by ChatGPT based on a conversation focusing on concepts including “shell game” and “man behind the curtain.”
