A recent Accounting Today piece by Chris Gaetano uses a speculative question to surface very real tensions in how the profession talks about AI.

Gaetano asks hypothetically: should sentient AI  be forced to do our taxes?  Sentient AI is defined by IBM as self-aware machines that act in accordance with their own motives, thoughts, and emotions)

Gaetano is careful to ground the discussion in reality, noting that today’s AI systems are nowhere near sentience and remain sophisticated pattern-recognition tools rather than conscious beings. Still, by entertaining the premise, he highlights the moral frameworks accountants instinctively reach for when confronted with rapid technological change.

Several experts he spoke with argued that true sentience would imply autonomy and consent, making forced labor unethical. Jeff Seibert, founder and CEO of Digits said, “Sentience would imply rights, autonomy, and the ability to consent to (or refuse) tasks,” adding that forcing such an entity to perform accounting work “would be coercion.”

Others rejected the premise entirely, cautioning against projecting human qualities onto machines or equating software with living beings. Donny Shimamoto of IntrapriseTechKnowlogies argued, “I fundamentally believe we should never associate human-equivalent qualities with AI or treat them as people.”

What makes the piece resonate is not the science fiction angle, but the contrast it draws with current, practical concerns. As the piece emphasizes, the real work facing the profession is not preparing for emancipated AI, but ensuring that non-sentient tools are deployed responsibly, transparently, and in ways that support human judgement.