Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract According to a widespread view, people often anthropomorphize machines such as certain robots and computer and AI systems by erroneously attributing mental states to them. On this view, people almost irresistibly believe, even if only subconsciously, that machines with certain human-like features really have phenomenal or subjective experiences like sadness, happiness, desire, pain, joy, and distress, even though they lack such feelings. This paper questions this view by critiquing common arguments used to support it and by suggesting an alternative explanation. Even if people’s behavior and language regarding human-like machines suggests they believe those machines really have mental states, it is possible that they do not believe that at all. The paper also briefly discusses potential implications of regarding such anthropomorphism as a popular myth. The exercise illuminates the difficult concept of anthropomorphism, helping to clarify possible human relations with or toward machines that increasingly resemble humans and animals.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Simon Coghlan (Thu,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/68e63e39b6db6435875d059b — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-024-09686-w
Simon Coghlan
Australian Research Council
Minds and Machines
The University of Melbourne
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: