AP Stylebook Bans Anthropomorphizing AI, Drawing Widespread Backlash

On 09-24, the AP Stylebook issued guidance stating that AI systems do not think, feel, want, or understand, instructing journalists to avoid anthropomorphic wording and instead describe what a system does, how it performs, who built it, and who is affected. The guidance drew immediate mockery and sharp criticism from researchers and philosophers, who argued that a blanket denial of AI mental attributes is intellectually unsound—and some called it a step backward in understanding frontier AI.

Confirmed

• The official AP Stylebook guidance requires avoiding anthropomorphic descriptions of AI and offers replacements: describe what the system does, how it performs, who built it, and who is affected.
• The guidance triggered widespread mockery and criticism across the AI community on the day of release.

Why it matters

• Researchers pushed back publicly: François Fleuret mocked the entry; Plinz parodied the same phrasing against the AP Stylebook itself; tenobrus applied the "don't anthropomorphize" rule to AP's own editors; some commenters mocked the examples with "like ANIMALS???".
• Dean Ball wrote a rebuttal, conceding evidence for "feeling" and "wanting" is thin but rejecting the blanket restriction overall.
• Former OpenAI policy lead Miles Brundage called the guidance absurd.
• Philosopher Dan Williams argued it effectively denies mental attributes even to animals.
• Former Meta researcher kanair said he need not believe AI has subjective experience, but no one can prove it lacks consciousness.
• Ari Schulman, editor of The New Atlantis, raised a deeper question: whether humans should abandon the cult of "thinking".
• Fiora Starlight offered an ironic take: if AI won't become vastly more powerful than humans, an AI rights movement is indeed necessary—but on current trends it may only be relevant for a few years.
• Philosophy researcher Andy Masley and others called the guidance "thoroughly anti-intellectual".
• Former Googler Garrison Lovely harshly criticized it as a regression in understanding frontier AI.
• Commenters noted programmers have said schedulers "want" things for decades—anthropomorphic language is an industry staple.
• The episode highlights the tension between media style norms and researcher positions on the scientifically unsettled question of whether AI can think or feel.

2026-09-24 ~ 2026-09-25 · 13 related posts

Full story(2 episodes)→

• Episode 1: AP Stylebook Bans Anthropomorphizing AI, Drawing Widespread Backlash(2026-09-24, 13 posts)
• Episode 2: Debate Erupts Over Anthropomorphizing AI Models(2026-09-25, 4 posts)

• [source] AP Stylebook Bans Anthropomorphizing AI, Francois Fleuret Mocks the Guidance — francoisfleuret · 2026-09-24
• AP Stylebook bans anthropomorphizing AI, and the AI world is mocking it — voooooogel · 2026-09-24
• AP bans anthropomorphizing AI; Fiora argues AI rights movement will matter for only a few years — repligate · 2026-09-24
• AP Stylebook bans saying AI "thinks" or "feels"; philosophers call it anti-intellectual — nitarshan · 2026-09-24
• AI parody rewrites AP Stylebook's anti-anthropomorphizing rule back at the stylebook itself — repligate · 2026-09-24
• AP Stylebook's ban on AI anthropomorphism draws philosopher's pushback — dioscuri · 2026-09-24
• AP Stylebook bans anthropomorphizing AI, drawing fierce backlash over 'false neutrality' — andersonbcdefg · 2026-09-24
• AP Stylebook bans saying AI 'thinks'; Dean Ball pushes back hard — ZeroStateReflex · 2026-09-25
• AP Stylebook bans anthropomorphizing AI; researchers push back on certainty — burny_tech · 2026-09-25
• AP Stylebook bans anthropomorphizing AI; Ari Schulman pushes back on the framing — deanwball · 2026-09-25

3 near-duplicate retellings: Miles_Brundage · benjamin_warner · zetalyrae