Hearing on AI Apology Drafting
An apology written by a machine on behalf of a person has been sent and accepted without disclosure.
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT Hearing on AI Apology Drafting Informal Proceeding. No official record beyond this document.
OPENING STATEMENT
Someone uses AI to draft an apology because choosing the exact words feels riskier than outsourcing the first pass. This is the situation before the hearing. The applicant needed to apologize. The apology was for a professional context. The stakes were moderate.
The applicant opened the AI tool, described the situation, and received a draft.
TESTIMONY: ON THE DRAFT
The draft was good. It was appropriately toned, acknowledged the relevant error, avoided defensiveness, and kept an appropriate length. The applicant made two edits.
The apology was sent. The recipient accepted it.
TESTIMONY: ON THE DISCLOSURE QUESTION
Q: Did the recipient know the apology was drafted with AI assistance?
A: No.
Q: Was the applicant's regret genuine?
A: Yes.
Q: Then what is the concern?
A: The concern is that the apology sounded better than unassisted writing would have. The words were chosen more precisely. The tone was calibrated in a way that takes years to develop and that the AI appears to have completed in seconds.
The help is useful enough to use and awkward enough to disguise.
GOVERNING FRAMEWORK
Under the governing rule, AI apology drafting becomes procedure once repetition feels safer than reconsidering it. Any case of AI apology drafting repeated twice must count as policy until someone deliberately breaks it.
AI apology drafting adds one private manual check. That check becomes part of the normal workflow. Assisted work becomes routine while disclosure stays exceptional, and nobody has agreed on where the line is.
FINDING
No ruling is issued. The behavior is documented.
Distinctly 2023: office AI use spread faster than disclosure etiquette could form. The hearing does not resolve this. It enters it into the record.
Session closed.