deceiver

It is not clear that it is helpful.\nIt is logical, but as you know logic is the great deceiver.

> So, if a deceiver is always a deceiver, what do you do if they tell you they are a deceiver?

Are some of these folks malicious or deceivers?

Say aver, but ever, fever, Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver.

And woe betide anyone that threatens to burst a self-deceiver's bubble with a sharp dose of reality.

He asked, essentially, am I living a fantasy dreamed up for me by a "great deceiver".

I think, I can't remember, he even considers if the grand deceiver could change his thoughts and memories.

Clarification needed - does the concept of deceit mean the deceiver understands what it is doing ie. has theory of mind?

It's possible to define a "deceiver" program that will use the oracle itself to change it's behavior.

Even if the deceiver reboots, the oracle could still detect cycles by checking the simulated state.

The Motte-and-Bailey is the ploy of either an intentional deceiver, or a parroting crony.

I'm sure most people in the listed categories are 'unhinged deceivers' rather than 'malicious deceivers', that still doesn't take away from the point.

Etc. etc. Likewise I could argue that no fraud has taken place because fraud involves a deception, a deception involves a deceiver and a deceived, and computers are not sapient, therefore they're not capable of being deceived.

I think anyone who brands themselves in such a manner -- namely, to purport to be something they're not -- is a duplicitous, deceitful deceiver, and has no place in honest business.

When someone is a 'malicious or unhinged deceiver', that means that they're either a 'malicious deceiver' or an 'unhinged deceiver'.

When I discover anyone has deceived me successfully, my shields are up around them, forever, because a deceiver is always a deceiver, I always have to spend more cpu cycles to wonder: "Are they deceiving me now"?

The word "deceiver," as used by the parent commentator, is quite reasonably used to mean "one who is noticeably more likely than baseline to choose to deceive" - your example gives no trouble: you accept it at face value.