\t\t\t\t\tSign up to see the future, today<\/p>\n
Can\u2019t-miss innovations from the bleeding edge of science and tech<\/p>\n
In the midst of heated discussions on AI safety and consciousness, the Associated Press Stylebook has reminded everyone of where it stands on the whole \u201canthropomorphism\u201d debate.<\/p>\n
\u201cArtificial intelligence systems do not think, feel, want or understand. Avoid language that gives them human characteristics,\u201d it wrote<\/a> Wednesday in a post on X. \u201cThis is called anthropomorphizing, when we ascribe human traits, emotions or behaviors to non-human things, such as animals or inanimate objects.\u201d<\/p>\n This didn\u2019t go over well in the world of AI experts and adherents, whose nerves, shall we say, were collectively struck by what they characterized as a \u201ccompletely insane<\/a>\u201d declaration.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m not sure a *style book* should be making such confident metaphysical pronouncements,\u201d fumed<\/a> Alan Rozenshtein, a member of technical staff at Anthropic.<\/p>\n Henry Shevlin, a philosopher and AI ethicist at Google DeepMind, suggested that the AP was being hypocritical because it anthropomorphized none other than Optimus Prime \u2014 the fictional, sapient robot from the \u201cTransformers\u201d franchise \u2014 in a film review.<\/p>\n \u201cAn AP movie review can tell us Optimus Prime mourns and loves, but readers need protecting from \u2018the computer understands,’\u201d he wrote<\/a>. \u201cWe routinely use mentalistic language without literal commitment. You\u2019d hope a style guide could distinguish using words from believing things.\u201d<\/p>\n OpenAI\u2019s head of strategic futures Dean Ball was also indignant.<\/p>\n