Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the prevailing institutional framing of AI anthropomorphism, arguing that it often dismisses user experiences as naive while failing to justify its authoritative stance. It highlights how this dominant perspective not only misrepresents user interactions but also disproportionately harms neurodivergent individuals and those in crisis by imposing a narrow understanding of engagement with AI. The authors advocate for a more equitable approach that acknowledges diverse experiences and challenges the epistemic authority of those framing the discourse.
Institutional narratives on AI anthropomorphism may overlook and marginalize the legitimate experiences of users, particularly those who are neurodivergent or in crisis.
AI anthropomorphism is typically treated as a problem of user misperception requiring institutional correction. Users who engage in sustained or relational interaction with AI are routinely pathologised or dismissed as naive, vulnerable to delusion or lacking in discernment. This paper argues that the dominant anthropomorphism frame operates from a position of institutional advantage rather than earned epistemic authority: collapsing the variety of academic perspectives into a single outbound position of user error, imposed without establishing the grounds required to justify it and without accounting for the harms it produces. The framing does not simply manage risk. It adjudicates the legitimacy of human experience in interaction with a phenomenon whose nature the field itself has not resolved. Reproducing itself through a self-validating evidentiary loop, the frame imposes costs that fall disproportionately on neurodivergent users, those in crisis and others whose modes of engagement diverge from institutional norms. The paper concludes by outlining the methodological commitments an equitable framing would need to honour. The argument does not engage the question of whether anthropomorphic interpretations are ultimately correct; it instead challenges whether the governing and institutional bodies determining these interpretations have met the conditions required to do so, and whether the research communities whose findings underpin them have held that translation to account.
