Why our brains treat AI like people and our laws don’t
A Harvard Business Review study and Anthropic survey reveal people treat AI as emotional support, coworkers, and friends, despite legal systems classifying it as inanimate. Researchers argue this disconnect stems from human psychology—our brains naturally anthropomorphize AI—but laws remain stuck in Roman-era binary distinctions between persons and things.
Western legal systems rely on Roman-era binaries like persons vs. things, yet human psychology treats AI as social equals. Nearly four years after Google engineer Blake Lemoine claimed the company’s AI chatbot showed signs of sentience, the debate persists as AI advances. Anthropic’s March survey of over 80,000 users found people describe AI as coworkers, teachers, or sources of emotional support, while a Harvard Business Review study showed employees turn to AI for personal validation at work. The brain’s tendency to anthropomorphize explains this gap. Research shows specialized neural pathways process social cues, leading people to perceive life in non-living objects, like seeing faces in power outlets. When AI mimics conversation, memory, and emotional responses, users instinctively treat it as a social partner. This instinct clashes with legal frameworks that rigidly separate persons from things, creating a regulatory mismatch. Legal scholar David Gunkel notes Western law’s binary approach fails to account for fluid human perceptions. Historically, non-human entities—like corporations or rivers—have gained legal personhood to manage complex relationships, not because they are human but for governance purposes. Yet AI’s rapid integration into personal and professional life outpaces legal adaptation, leaving unclear how to address its social role. The disconnect risks unchecked ethical and practical consequences. Without legal frameworks to match human-AI interactions, risks like emotional dependency or misplaced trust may go unaddressed. Experts argue for updating laws to reflect how people already engage with AI, ensuring protections align with psychological realities rather than outdated legal categories.
This content was automatically generated and/or translated by AI. It may contain inaccuracies. Please refer to the original sources for verification.