arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2609.38486

Anthropomorphism in the age of Large Language Models: An overview of potential risks and mitigations

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) and more broadly Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are often described and understood in human-like terms, a phenomenon known as anthropomorphism. This paper provides a synthesis of recent literature on anthropomorphism in AI, covering theoretical frameworks, the role of language in framing AI as human-like, the various risks of anthropomorphizing machines, and strategies to mitigate these issues. After examining why we tend to anthropomorphize AI systems and whether we are right to do so, we highlight the impact of linguistic framing on anthropomorphism. Then, we introduce a conceptual taxonomy of risks associated with AI anthropomorphism. This taxonomy groups twenty-one concerns within five analytical categories: epistemic, affective, human agency, normative, and societal and institutional risks. Finally, we relate these concerns to proposed interventions in design, communication, education, and governance. We argue that a better understanding of AI systems requires concepts and theories grounded in their organization and demonstrated capacities. The linguistic shaping of anthropomorphic perceptions should form part of this scientific effort, since our descriptions influence both how these systems are understood and the roles we allow them to occupy in society.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ismael T. Freire, Marceau Nahon, Maud van Lier, Katie Evans, Hélie Bazin, Michele Farisco, Kathinka Evers, Raja Chatila, Mehdi Khamassi. 2026-10-01. Anthropomorphism in the age of Large Language Models: An overview of potential risks and mitigations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38486

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Orchestrating LLM Agents for Scientific Research: A Pilot Study of Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) Generation and Evaluation

Advances in large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming scientific work, yet empirical evidence on how these systems reshape research activities remains limited. We report a mixed-methods pilot evaluation of an AI-orchestrated research workflow in which a human researcher coordinated multiple LLM-based agents to perform data extraction, corpus construction, artifact generation, and artifact evaluation. Using the generation and assessment of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) as a testbed, we collected 1,071 SAT Math MCQs and employed LLM agents to extract questions from PDFs, retrieve and convert open textbooks into structured representations, align each MCQ with relevant textbook content, generate new MCQs under specified difficulty and cognitive levels, and evaluate both original and generated MCQs using a 24-criterion quality framework. Across all evaluations, average MCQ quality was high. However, criterion-level analysis and equivalence testing show that generated MCQs are not fully comparable to expert-vetted baseline questions. Strict similarity (24/24 criteria equivalent) was never achieved. Persistent gaps concentrated in skill\ depth, cognitive engagement, difficulty calibration, and metadata alignment, while surface-level qualities, such as {grammar fluency}, {clarity options}, {no duplicates}, were consistently strong. Beyond MCQ outcomes, the study documents a labor shift. The researcher's work moved from ``authoring items'' toward {specification, orchestration, verification}, and {governance}. Formalizing constraints, designing rubrics, building validation loops, recovering from tool failures, and auditing provenance constituted the primary activities. We discuss implications for the future of scientific work, including emerging ``AI research operations'' skills required for AI-empowered research pipelines.

cs.CY↗

TeamLens in Critsly: A Consent-Based Team-Composition Interface and Synthetic Readiness Evaluation for Design Collaboration

Discussing working preferences may support reflection within a design team, but a personality label should not become a performance prediction or a condition of participation. This technical report presents TeamLens, an optional Critsly interface for voluntarily sharing a self-reported MBTI type with a particular board. It separates account activation from disclosure, displays descriptive composition counts, and provides distinct controls for disabling visibility, withdrawing one report and deleting all of one's reports. The evaluation combines released-source inspection, independently specified synthetic aggregation cases, access and lifecycle checks, browser component tests, a local database microbenchmark and deployment records. All 65,536 binary eligibility subsets of sixteen fixed, distinct type reports matched an independent oracle; 128 seeded multiplicity fixtures also matched, after 4,259 synthetic share calls. The isolated HTTP suite passed 183 assertions. In 180 sequential in-memory SQLite read trials, median service-call time increased from 0.064 ms with no profile rows to 200.932 ms with 1,024 rows; instrumented SQL operations followed 11+3n. These findings concern exercised software behaviour and a bounded workload. They do not establish human usability, psychometric validity, learning gains, team-performance effects or production capacity. The contribution is an implemented disclosure-to-aggregation workflow and an auditable technical account of its correctness boundaries, privacy limitations and scaling cost. OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, evaluation and manuscript preparation; the paper discloses this use and its limits.

cs.CY↗

MARS: A Momentum-Aware Adaptive Rating System for Personalized Assessment

Adaptive assessment systems personalize learning by estimating learner proficiency and recommending suitable questions. However, many existing approaches rely on fixed difficulty labels, static rating updates, or black-box prediction models that provide limited control over rating stability, interpretability, and time-constrained routing. This paper proposes MARS, a Momentum-Aware Adaptive Rating System for interpretable adaptive assessment. MARS represents the question bank as a directed weighted knowledge graph and updates learner proficiency using dynamic rating sensitivity, response quality, and momentum-aware learner velocity. We also formulate a time-budgeted mark-maximization objective in which the policy selects questions within a fixed test duration under negative marking. Experiments on ASSISTments 2009 and MARS-SimExam evaluate MARS for prediction, rating stability, and adaptive routing. Results show that MARS provides smoother rating updates than Fixed Elo and achieves the highest score under time-budgeted negative-marking routing, improving the total score by 8.09 over the strongest baseline and reducing overtime violations from 50% to 5.6%. These results suggest that MARS is suitable for real-time, interpretable, and deployment-friendly adaptive assessment.

cs.CY↗