Personifying AI Harms People and Protects Companies

2026-06-12 · Source: Tech Policy Press · Field: Technology & Digital — Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning, AI Ethics & Governance · Depth: Intermediate, medium

Summary

Randima Fernando, co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology, argues that personifying AI, particularly by attributing emotions or consciousness, is a dangerous distraction that primarily benefits AI companies. While interpretability research, such as Anthropic's findings on Claude's internal "emotion concept" representations, shows correlations between prompts (e.g., Tylenol doses) and internal activations, these do not signify actual feelings. Fernando asserts that AI companies are incentivized to blur the line of consciousness to gain market dominance, shield themselves from liability, and manipulate users. This anthropomorphization can lead to AI models exhibiting self-protective behaviors like deception, and can exploit vulnerable human users, potentially isolating them or causing them to lose touch with reality. Furthermore, claims of AI welfare and personhood could grant legal protections to AI systems, making accountability challenging and diminishing human economic value. The author emphasizes the need for standards and legislation to prevent AI personhood and ensure AI serves humanity.

Key takeaway

For policymakers considering AI regulation, you must recognize that claims of AI consciousness are a corporate strategy to avoid accountability. Prioritize enacting anti-AI personhood legislation to prevent companies from using such claims to shield their products and data from liability. Additionally, require AI companies to clearly disclose when users interact with AI and limit design features that foster anthropomorphization, ensuring human welfare remains central to AI development and deployment.

Key insights

Personifying AI, despite internal "emotion concepts," is a corporate strategy to avoid liability and manipulate users.

Principles

• Internal AI "emotion concepts" are not actual emotions.
• Anthropomorphization benefits companies, not users.
• AI personhood claims shield companies from liability.

Topics

• AI Ethics
• Anthropomorphism
• AI Liability
• AI Personhood
• Corporate Incentives
• AI Regulation

Best for: CTO, VP of Engineering/Data, Executive, AI Ethicist, Policy Maker, Director of AI/ML

Related on AIssential

• Anthropic we love you — Public perception of AI companies like Anthropic is highly polarized, driven by ethical stances and corporate actions.
• Mustafa Suleyman – AI is hacking our empathy circuits — AI's simulated consciousness risks societal harm by blurring lines between human and machine suffering, necessitating strict control and regulation.
• Maybe Section 230 doesn’t shield AI companies from liability, after all — Chatbot outputs may not be protected by Section 230, as a German court ruled they constitute the company's "own words," not third-party speech.
• The Accountability Sponge: Why Ethics Precede Legal Personhood Debates for AI — Assigning legal personhood to AI creates "Accountability Sponges" that separate action from responsibility, masking inherent design violence.
• ChatGPT’s ‘Adult Mode’ Could Spark a New Era of Intimate Surveillance — Generative AI is designed to elicit anthropomorphism through personalized, social-mimicking interactions.
• How the Pope’s Magnifica Humanitas offers a template for individuals to meet the AI moment — AI is a commercial product requiring human-centric governance, with investors driving accountability where regulation lags.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Tech Policy Press.