Cited by 148Ethics and Social Impacts of AICybernetics and Technology in SocietyArtificial Intelligence Applications

The Rhetoric and Reality of Anthropomorphism in Artificial Intelligence

Open access
Watson, David·2019·Minds and Machines

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has historically been conceptualized in anthropomorphic terms. Some algorithms deploy biomimetic designs in a deliberate attempt to effect a sort of digital isomorphism of the human brain. Others leverage more general learning strategies that happen to coincide with popular theories of cognitive science and social epistemology. In this paper, I challenge the anthropomorphic credentials of the neural network algorithm, whose similarities to human cognition I argue are vastly overstated and narrowly construed. I submit that three alternative supervised learning methods—namely lasso penalties, bagging, and boosting—offer subtler, more interesting analogies to human reasoning as both an individual and a social phenomenon. Despite the temptation to fall back on anthropomorphic tropes when discussing AI, however, I conclude that such rhetoric is at best misleading and at worst downright dangerous. The impulse to humanize algorithms is an obstacle to properly conceptualizing the ethical challenges posed by emerging technologies.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11023-019-09506-6

Cites

135 of 135 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • DNNs are one of the most advanced and promising fields within AI research, with DNN architecture applied in AlphaZero's win and many AI-related applications.

    “It is true that DNNs are one of the most advanced and promising fields within AI research, with DNN architecture applied in AlphaZero's famous win over the human Go world champion and a part of many AI-related applications, such as Google translation services, Facebook facial recognition software, and virtual assistants like Apple's Siri [9, 17].”

    From Anthropomorphism in AI: hype and fallacy (2024) · cites this paper as [9]

    Section 3, “Neural Networks” (page unavailable), says DNNs drove a wave of AI research and power Google translation; the following passage also names Facebook facial recognition and Siri. Another passage describes AlphaZero as a DNN and a Go champion, but does not say it beat a human Go world champion. The paper calls DNN achievements impressive while arguing that the field has been overhyped, so it does not support calling DNNs among AI’s most promising fields without qualification. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • DNNs' similarities to human cognition have been seriously overstated and narrowly construed, especially in light of DNNs' considerable shortcomings such as brittleness, inefficiency and myopia.

    “David Watson [9], for example, has argued that DNNs' similarities to human cognition have been seriously overstated and narrowly construed, especially in light of DNNs' considerable shortcomings (e.g., brittleness, inefficiency, and myopia).”

    From Anthropomorphism in AI: hype and fallacy (2024) · cites this paper as [9]

  • Even for AI techniques explicitly modelled to resemble human neurons, the similarity to actual human cognition has been described as overstated, possibly leading to dangerous misunderstandings.

    “Even for the AI techniques that were explicitly modelled to resemble human neurons, the similarity to actual human cognition has been described as overstated, possibly leading to dangerous misunderstandings [89].”

    From Deanthropomorphising NLP: Can a language model be conscious? (2024) · cites this paper as [89]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Buckner, C., & Garson, J. (2019). Connectionism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of phi- losophy (Fall 2019). Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  2. Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. http:// arxiv .org/abs/1702.08608 .
  3. Ehrlinger, J., & Ishwaran, H. (2012). Characterizing L2-boosting. The Annals of Statistics, 40(2), 1074-1101.
  4. Galton, F. (1907). Vox Populi. Nature, 75(1949), 450-451.
  5. Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., … Bengio, Y. (2014). Generative adversarial nets. In Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, & K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (pp. 2672-2680).
  6. Goodfellow, I. J., Shlens, J., & Szegedy, C. (2015). Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. http://arxiv .org/abs/1702.08608 .
  7. Hahn, R. P., Murray, J. S., & Carvalho, C. M. (2017). Bayesian regression tree models for causal infer- ence: Regularization, confounding, and heterogeneous effects. https ://arxiv .org/abs/1706.09523 .
  8. Hinton, G. E., Srivastava, N., Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Salakhutdinov, R. R. (2012). Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors. https ://arxiv .org/abs/1207.0580.
  9. Ilyas, A., Santurkar, S., Tsipras, D., Engstrom, L., Tran, B., & Madry, A. (2019). Adversarial examples are not bugs, they are features. https ://arxiv .org/abs/1905.02175 .
  10. Lipton, Z. C. (2016). The mythos of model interpretability. https ://arxiv .org/abs/1606.03490 .
  11. Makhzani, A., & Frey, B. (2013). k-Sparse autoencoders. https ://arxiv .org/abs/1312.5663.
  12. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  13. Sabour, S., Frosst, N., & Hinton, G. E. (2017). Dynamic Routing Between Capsules. In I Guyon, U. V Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, & R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (pp. 3856-3866).
  14. Team, S. (2017). Hey Siri: An on-device DNN-powered voice trigger for apple's personal assistant. Apple Machine Learning Journal, 1(6). https ://machi nelea rning .apple .com/2017/10/01/hey-siri.html.
  15. Warde-Farley, D., Goodfellow, I. J., Courville, A., & Bengio, Y. (2013). An empirical analysis of dropout in piecewise linear networks. https ://arxiv .org/abs/1312.6197.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Watson, D.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Watson, David
Venue
Minds and Machines
Published
2019-09
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
417-440
ISSN
  • 0924-6495 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8641
OpenAlex
W2973907375
Cited by
148
References
135
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9
FWCI
17.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Minds and Machines (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
anthropomorphism, artificial intelligence, artificial neural networks, human cognition, biomimetic design, lasso penalty, bagging, boosting, supervised learning, social epistemology, cognitive science, AI ethics

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