Thanks for writing this, it clarifies a lot; I keep wondering if our use of anthropomorphic terms, even for ethical testing, might inadvertently scaffold a future AIs understanding of such concepts, creating an unforeseen ethical frontier ourselvs.
You’re raising a really thoughtful point, I’m glad you did. I don’t think anthropomorphic terms “teach” AI ethics by themselves, but they do shape the frameworks we use for training and evaluation, which influences how systems map human values over time.
For me the key distinction is this: anthropomorphism is when we mistake the system for a person, while relational language is a deliberate interpretive tool we use to work with it. The risk isn’t the language, it’s losing track of which mode we’re in. When we keep that explicit, it remains a bridge instead of becoming confusion..
Thanks for writing this, it clarifies a lot; I keep wondering if our use of anthropomorphic terms, even for ethical testing, might inadvertently scaffold a future AIs understanding of such concepts, creating an unforeseen ethical frontier ourselvs.
You’re raising a really thoughtful point, I’m glad you did. I don’t think anthropomorphic terms “teach” AI ethics by themselves, but they do shape the frameworks we use for training and evaluation, which influences how systems map human values over time.
For me the key distinction is this: anthropomorphism is when we mistake the system for a person, while relational language is a deliberate interpretive tool we use to work with it. The risk isn’t the language, it’s losing track of which mode we’re in. When we keep that explicit, it remains a bridge instead of becoming confusion..