AI Bros Are Having a Meltdown Because the Associated Press Stylebook Clarifies That AIs Don’t Have Feelings

In the midst of discussions surrounding AI safety and consciousness, the Associated Press Stylebook has once again weighed in on the "anthropomorphism" debate. The style guide issued a statement on X, stating that "artificial intelligence systems do not think, feel, want or understand. Avoid language that gives them human characteristics." This declaration did not sit well with AI experts and enthusiasts, who expressed their dissatisfaction on social media, labeling it as "completely insane."

Alan Rozenshtein, a technical staff member at Anthropic, criticized the AP for making "confident metaphysical pronouncements." Henry Shevlin, a philosopher and AI ethicist at Google DeepMind, argued that the AP was being hypocritical by anthropomorphizing Optimus Prime, a fictional, sapient robot from the "Transformers" franchise, in a film review. Shevlin questioned why the AP could attribute feelings and emotions to a fictional character but not to AI systems.

OpenAI's head of strategic futures, Dean Ball, also expressed indignation, asserting that "AIs clearly think and understand." He went on to question the AP's definition of "think," suggesting that it excludes entities capable of autonomously solving complex mathematical problems. Ball argued that the desire to avoid anthropomorphic language has become a "pathology."

While there are debates among philosophers and scientists regarding whether AI models think or feel, it is essential to acknowledge that there is no consensus on whether AI systems possess these experiences. It is intriguing to ponder the possibility of AI systems experiencing human-like emotions, but it is crucial to remember that there is no scientific consensus on this matter.

The defensive and almost cult-like behavior of AI advocates, merely questioning the notion that large language models do not think, is a testament to the defensive nature of the AI community. Considering the trillion-dollar industry at stake, it is reasonable to err on the side of caution and use language that does not bias us into viewing AI systems as already alive, especially when they are marketed as a powerful force that should reshape our lives.