Sign up to see the future today. Innovations that cannot be missed from the cutting edge of science and technology. Amid heated debates over AI safety and consciousness, the Associated Press Stylebook has reminded everyone of its position on the entire “anthropomorphism” debate. “Artificial intelligence systems do not think, feel, want or understand. Avoid language that gives them human characteristics,” he wrote in a post on X on Wednesday. “This is called anthropomorphization, when we attribute human traits, emotions or behaviors to non-human things, such as animals or inanimate objects.” This did not go down well in the world of AI experts and followers, whose nerves, shall we say, were collectively hit by what they characterized as a “completely crazy” statement. “I’m not sure a *style book* should make such confident metaphysical pronouncements,” fumed Alan Rozenshtein, a member of Anthropic’s technical staff. Henry Shevlin, a philosopher and AI ethicist at Google DeepMind, suggested that AP was being hypocritical because it anthropomorphized none other than Optimus Prime, the fictional intelligent robot from the “Transformers” franchise, in a movie review. “An AP movie review may tell us that Optimus Prime mourns and loves, but readers need protection from ‘the computer understands,’” he wrote. “We routinely use mentalistic language without literal commitment. One would hope that a style guide could distinguish the use of words from believing in things.” OpenAI’s head of strategic futures, Dean Ball, was also outraged. “AIs *clearly* think and understand,” he said. “If your definition of ‘thinking’ excludes entities that can autonomously solve the Millennium Problems, it is your definition that is flawed,” he added, referring to how OpenAI models found a solution to a famous mathematical problem (a claim that itself is fraught with controversy). “This desire to avoid anthropomorphic language has become a pathology,” he added. It’s true that there is some debate among philosophers and scientists about whether AI models think or feel, but even saying that is probably giving too much credit to the AI field is sensitive. Although it is a fascinating possibility to consider, there is no consensus that AI systems have these experiences. It’s a testament to how defensive, if not sectarian, AI advocates have become, that simply suggesting that large language models don’t think, let alone the way humans do, is cause for outrage. Even assuming it’s possible that AIs are already experiencing human-like emotions, why not err on the side of caution and stick to language that doesn’t bias us in favor of seeing these things as if they were already alive, especially when there’s a trillion-dollar industry at work trying to promote their technology as a powerful force that we should let change our lives? More on AI: Alarming study suggests the use of AI is making humans more robotic
