Talk:AI anthropomorphism

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Darth Stabro (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that, in one survey, two thirds of US adults attribute some possibility of consciousness to ChatGPT?

• Source: Clara Colombatto, Stephen M Fleming, Folk psychological attributions of consciousness to large language models, Neuroscience of Consciousness, Volume 2024, Issue 1, 2024, niae013, https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niae013

• • ALT1: ... that, in one survey, two thirds of US adults believe that ChatGPT may be conscious on some level? Source: Clara Colombatto, Stephen M Fleming, Folk psychological attributions of consciousness to large language models, Neuroscience of Consciousness, Volume 2024, Issue 1, 2024, niae013, https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niae013
  • Reviewed:

Created by Idiwojoj (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Idiwojoj (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC).

• Wow what a long article, nicely done. I've just extended the links in your hooks to comply with with MOS:EGG because it looked like the article consciousness was the one being linked to. There are no obvious copyright issues. The "two thirds" part mathces the survey and article but I think the hook is slightly misleading because the article says "though other research has shown that the public still views the likelihood itself of AI consciousness as comparatively low." Is it possible that you could update the hooks to say something like "in one survey"? Other than that everything looks good. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks! I just edited both hooks to match your suggestions. Let me know if anything else is needed! Idiwojoj (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks, looks good! Approved. ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Idiwojoj:, the last sentence of the "Large language models" section is unreferenced. Same with the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Human factors" section. Same again with most subsections of the "In popular culture" section. Please correct this. TarnishedPath^talk 13:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

• Hi, I've just added the citations. Please let me know if there are any other issues. Thanks! Idiwojoj (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

ELIZA effect

Is ELIZA effect similar enough to be merged here? It could be considered a special case where the AI is rudimentary. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The Eliza is indeed a historical special case of AI anthropomorphism, but I believe it deserves its own article. And the Eliza effect is quite popular according to pageviews, so it seems useful for readers to have a standalone article. Alenoach (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Maintaining its own entry is also marks a historical precedent. Sometimes categories flatten important precedents. Similar to film/tv, perhaps the category could display a chart that lists computing versions that exhibit anthropomorphism ~2026-12488-10 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)