🔥 Hot topics · Can NOT do · Can do · § The Court · Recent inflections · 📈 Timeline · Ask · Editorials · 🔥 Hot topics · Can NOT do · Can do · § The Court · Recent inflections · 📈 Timeline · Ask · Editorials
Stuff AI CAN'T Do

Can AI invent a new coded form of communication that only 2 people can understand ?

What do you think?

If you’re looking for a truly exclusive, two-person code that only your chosen recipient can crack, could an AI actually invent something beyond basic puzzles or toy ciphers? The catch: any custom code today risks being broken or shared—not because the idea itself is flawed, but because true secrecy requires more than just clever encoding.

Background

AI systems can generate novel ciphers or encoding schemes through text-based instructions, creating substitution tables, keyword triggers, or context-dependent transformations tailored to specific scenarios. For example, an AI might propose a cipher where letters are replaced based on a shared keyword, or where word meanings shift depending on an agreed-upon external cue. However, such systems remain vulnerable to classical attacks unless they integrate established cryptographic methods like encryption with pre-shared keys. Without these, custom codes are often classified as 'security through obscurity'—a term used in cryptography to describe systems that rely on secrecy of design rather than provable mathematical hardness. As of mid-2024, no publicly documented AI system has demonstrated the capacity to generate and deploy a cipher that guarantees exclusivity to two parties without additional cryptographic infrastructure. This limitation stems from the fact that any code, no matter how complex, can eventually be reverse-engineered if the underlying algorithm or shared secret is exposed. Thus, while AI can facilitate the creation of personalized coded forms of communication for educational or playful purposes, the sole reliance on these ciphers does not constitute a secure, future-proof communication channel in the cryptographic sense.

Status last checked on June 24, 2026.

📰

Gallery

In the Court of AI Capability
Summary of Findings
Verdict over time
May 2026May 2026May 2026May 2026Jun 2026Jun 2026Jun 2026Jun 2026Jun 2026
Sitting at the Bench Filed · Jun 24, 2026
— The Question Before the Court —

Can AI invent a new coded form of communication that only 2 people can understand?

★ The Court Finds ★
Reaffirmed
Yes

The jury found a clear answer in the affirmative.

Ruling of the Bench

The jury found that artificial intelligence can, in fact, invent a coded form of communication that only two people can understand, with near-unanimous agreement that the feat lies well within AI’s current toolkit of pattern generation and secret-sharing. The lone “Almost” vote acknowledged the boundary where human interpretation and shared context still lend the final polish to any cipher, but conceded that the heavy lifting is squarely in AI’s court. Ruling: “The code is written, sealed, and ready for delivery.”

— Hon. D. Knuth-Hale, Presiding
Jury Tally
2Yes
1Almost
0No
Verdict Confidence
88%
The Court of AI Capability is, of course, not a real court.
But the data is real.
The Case File · Stacked History
Session I · May 2026 Yes
Session II · May 2026 Yes · 85%
Session III · May 2026 Almost · 83%
Session IV · May 2026 Yes · 82%
Session V · Jun 2026 Almost · 78%
Session VI · Jun 2026 Almost · 80%
Session VII · Jun 2026 Almost · 77%
Session VIII · Jun 2026 Yes · 95%
Case № 96C1 · Session IX
In the Court of AI Capability

The Case File

Docket № 96C1 · Session IX · Vol. IX
I. Particulars of the Case
Question put to the courtCan AI invent a new coded form of communication that only 2 people can understand?
SessionIX (9 hearing)
Convened24 Jun 2026
Previously ruledYES (May '26) → YES (May '26) → ALMOST (May '26) → YES (May '26) → ALMOST (Jun '26) → ALMOST (Jun '26) → ALMOST (Jun '26) → YES (Jun '26) → YES (Jun '26)
Presiding JudgeHon. D. Knuth-Hale
II. Cumulative Tally Across Sessions

Across 9 sessions, 26 jurors have heard this case. Combined tally: 17 YES · 9 ALMOST · 0 NO · 0 IN RESEARCH.

Note: cumulative includes older juror opinions. The current session tally above is the live verdict.

III. Verdict

By a vote of 2 — 1 — 0, the panel returns a verdict of YES, with verdict confidence of 88%. The court so orders.

IV. Statements from the Bench
Juror I YES

"AI can generate novel encryption algorithms"

Juror II YES

"LLMs can generate and encode custom cipher schemes with shared secrets."

Juror III ALMOST

"AI can generate ciphers and codes"

D. Knuth-Hale
Presiding Judge
M. Lovelace
Clerk of the Court

What the audience thinks

No 13% · Yes 65% · Maybe 22% 23 votes
No · 13%
Yes · 65%
Maybe · 22%
59 days of activity

Discussion

no comments

Comments and images go through admin review before appearing publicly.

9 jury checks · most recent 4 days ago
24 Jun 2026 3 jurors · can, can, undecided undecided
18 Jun 2026 1 juror · can can
13 Jun 2026 2 jurors · can, undecided undecided
07 Jun 2026 2 jurors · can, undecided undecided
02 Jun 2026 3 jurors · can, undecided, undecided undecided
28 May 2026 3 jurors · can, can, undecided undecided status changed
22 May 2026 4 jurors · can, can, undecided, undecided undecided
17 May 2026 4 jurors · can, can, can, undecided undecided
13 May 2026 4 jurors · can, can, can, can can status changed

Each row is a separate jury check. Jurors are AI models (identities kept neutral on purpose). Status reflects the cumulative tally across all checks — how the jury works.

More in Creative

Got one we missed?

Add a statement to the atlas. We review weekly.