Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the impact of anthropomorphic language on public perceptions of AI by comparing responses from 815 participants to texts with and without such language. Contrary to expectations, the findings reveal that anthropomorphic framing does not significantly alter perceptions of AI technologies, including large language models and recommendation systems. While immediate effects on public opinion appear modest, the authors suggest that prolonged exposure to anthropomorphic language may still influence perceptions in real-world contexts.
Anthropomorphic language fails to significantly shift public perceptions of AI, challenging assumptions about its influence on understanding and policy.
Public discourse about artificial intelligence (AI) often uses anthropomorphic language: language that attributes human capabilities and characteristics to the system. This practice has been criticized for setting misleading expectations, inflating claims, and fueling hype around AI, which may distort public understanding of AI and impact policy priorities. We study the effects of anthropomorphic framing by comparing changes in participants' perceptions (N=815) when reading passages with and without anthropomorphic language, designed to reflect realistic public-facing AI discourse. We further examine whether these effects differ across two types of AI technologies -- large language models and recommendation systems -- and measure changes in perceptions of AI across several dimensions that are prominent in current public discourse. In a separate condition using a text that explicitly discusses the dangers of AI, we show that individuals' views of AI can shift in response to reading a text; yet in the main conditions of the experiment, where we compare anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic descriptions, we find that whether the text uses anthropomorphic language does not substantially affect participants' perceptions of AI. Our results indicate that any immediate effects on public opinions of AI are modest, although they leave open the possibility that anthropomorphic language could have an effect in naturalistic settings, or over gradual, continued exposure.