“Your friendly AI assistant”: the anthropomorphic self-representations of ChatGPT and its implications for imagining AI
Open accessAbstract
This study analyzes how ChatGPT portrays and describes itself, revealing misleading myths about AI technologies, specifically conversational agents based on large language models. This analysis allows for critical reflection on the potential harm these misconceptions may pose for public understanding of AI and related technologies. While previous research has explored AI discourses and representations more generally, few studies focus specifically on AI chatbots. To narrow this research gap, an experimental-qualitative investigation into auto-generated AI representations based on prompting was conducted. Over the course of a month, ChatGPT (both in its GPT-4 and GPT-4o models) was prompted to “Draw an image of yourself,” “Represent yourself visually,” and “Envision yourself visually.” The resulting data (n = 50 images and 58 texts) was subjected to a critical exploratory visual semiotic analysis to identify recurring themes and tendencies in how ChatGPT is represented and characterized. Three themes emerged from the analysis: anthropomorphism, futuristic/futurism and (social)intelligence. Importantly, compared to broader AI imaginations, the findings emphasize ChatGPT as a friendly AI assistant. These results raise critical questions about trust in these systems, not only in terms of their capability to produce reliable information and handle personal data, but also in terms of human–computer relations.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
At worst, use of AI technology intended to help has contributed to tragic consequences, such as suicide.
“At worst, the use of AI technology intended to help (advise or provide answers) has contributed to tragic consequences, such as suicide (van Es and Nguyen, 2025;Xiang, 2023).”
From There is no such thing as conscious artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as van Es and Nguyen, 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 37
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Barthes R (1977) The rhetoric of the image (S. Heath, Trans.). In Image-music-text. Glasgow: Fontana. pp. 32–51
- Dihal K, Duarte T (2023) Better images of AI: a guide for users and creators. Cambridge and London: the leverhulme centre for the future of intelligence and we and AI. https://betterimagesofai.org/. Accessed 25 Oct 2024.
- Markelius A, Wright C, Kuiper J et al (2024) The mechanisms of AI hype and its planetary and social costs. AI Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00461-24 · DOI
- Authors
- van Es, K., & Nguyen, D.
- Affiliations
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Venue
- AI & SOCIETY
- Published
- 2024-10-27
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 3591-3603
- ISSN
- 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-5655
- OpenAlex
- W4403844761
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 15
- FWCI
- 15.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- AI & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, anthropomorphism, large language models, AI chatbots, visual semiotics, human-AI relationship, trust in AI, GPT-4, GPT-4o
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review