Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 140 references

The Epistemic Politics of AI Anthropomorphism

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that institutional anti-anthropomorphism governance overrides users' epistemic authority without justification, treating sustained AI engagement as pathology and imposing costs that fall hardest on neurodivergent users and

desk verdict A well-built normative synthesis worth serious referee time, but its load-bearing empirical claims about a 'uniform frame' and 'disproportionate costs' are asserted from selected cases rather than established. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00961 v1 pith:JGZVQJBG submitted 2026-08-02 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC

Donna M Bye , Levin Kuhlmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.HC
keywords anthropomorphismepistemicauthorityAIgovernancecognitivelibertyneurodivergenceinjusticeself-validatingloopcompanions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the standard institutional response to AI anthropomorphism—treating it as user error requiring correction—operates from institutional advantage rather than earned epistemic authority. The frame collapses diverse academic views into a single outbound message that relational or sustained engagement with AI is naive or pathological, without establishing the grounds required to override users' reports of their own experience. The paper traces a self-validating loop in which engagement is classified as abnormal, users self-censor, the resulting absence is cited as evidence, and design reinforces the classification, with costs falling disproportionately on neurodivergent users, people in crisis, and others whose modes of engagement diverge from institutional norms. The argument deliberately avoids settling whether anthropomorphic interpretations are correct; it challenges whether the institutions making these determinations have met the conditions required to do so and whether the research communities underpinning them have accounted for the consequences. If right, current anti-anthropomorphism governance is not just risk management but a restructuring of the conditions under which users are permitted to interpret their own cognition.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the self-validating evidentiary loop: engagement is classified as abnormal, users self-censor or adapt, the resulting absence is cited as evidence that the engagement was unwarranted, and that evidence shapes design choices that reinforce the classification. The loop is powered by a reversal of the default presumption of user competence, converting user testimony into symptom. The paper also uses two conceptual distinctions as machinery: epistemic authority versus institutional advantage (from the philosophy of testimony), and the asymmetry of over-ascription versus under-ascription harms, which forces the question of whose costs a frame is designed to count.

What would settle it

A systematic audit of institutional outputs—platform disclaimers and context-reset prompts, mental-health chatbot protocols, companion-app safety documentation, and recent legislation—coded for whether they present relational or sustained AI engagement as pathology versus as one legitimate mode among others. If a substantial share of guidance explicitly validates relational engagement or weighs under-ascription harms, the claim of a uniform frame fails. A complementary test: longitudinal measurement of self-censorship and perceived epistemic standing among high-continuity users under current v

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the dominant anthropomorphism frame in AI governance performs a covert epistemic override. It starts from a presumption of user competence and reverses it as a blanket condition: users who report relational, interpretive, or sustained engagement with AI are candidates for correction by default. Drawing on the philosophy of epistemic authority, the paper distinguishes legitimate authority—grounded in treating subjects as having prima facie sovereignty over their own experience, demonstrating sufficient grounds to displace it, and remaining open to correction—from institutional advantage, in which standing substitutes for grounds without acknowledgment. The fr

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the frame is empirically monolithic and dominant—that disclaimers, context resets, legislation, and design defaults transmit a uniform 'user error' message at scale, and that the resulting costs fall disproportionately on neurodivergent users, people in crisis, and others with non-normative engagement. If institutional guidance is heterogeneous, or the harm distribution differs, the equity critique and the self-validating loop lose their empirical footing

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Anti-anthropomorphism measures—disclaimers, context resets, design defaults, and legislation—must be justified as interventions in users' cognitive environments, with the burden of proof on the institution imposing them.
  • The costs of under-ascription (discounting engagement that was warranted) must be specified and weighed alongside over-ascription harms; a framework that ignores one direction has made an ethical commitment, not a neutral assessment.
  • Observed usage patterns cannot be treated as independent evidence about what users prefer or what is normal, because the frame itself shapes the conditions under which those patterns are produced.
  • Design trajectories that privilege brief transactional exchanges and penalize sustained dialogue are normative choices that foreclose modes of thinking that work for users whose cognition is non-normative; they are not neutral optimizations.
  • Because institutions are both the actors performing the constraints and the adjudicators of whether the constraint is legitimate, the question of whether AI interaction constitutes cognitive extension or harmful dependency is currently bypassed, not answered.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The uniformity premise is testable: a systematic content analysis of platform disclaimers, context-reset guidance, legislation, and clinical protocols could measure how consistently the 'user error' message is transmitted, and whether any institutional outputs explicitly validate relational engagement.
  • The self-validating-loop account predicts that high-continuity users will show measurable self-censorship under current defaults; a longitudinal study that varies continuity design (e.g., persistent threads, easy context restoration) and measures articulation of relational engagement would test that prediction.
  • The asymmetry argument implies a decision-theoretic framing: if both error directions are costs, then governance choices could be evaluated by explicitly assigning weights to over-ascription and under-ascription harms; the paper does not do this, but its logic invites it.
  • The extended-mind application suggests a testable boundary condition: if AI systems function as cognitive scaffolding for some users, then interventions that degrade continuity should produce measurable cognitive-performance decrements for those users, analogous to removing a tool from an expert's workflow.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that institutional anti-anthropomorphism governance—disclaimers, design defaults, legislative language, and clinical guidance—is not a neutral risk-management response to user error but an exercise of epistemic authority that systematically overrides users' own testimony. It claims that this 'frame' collapses internal academic disagreement into a uniform message of user naivety, operates from institutional advantage rather than earned epistemic authority, and imposes costs that fall disproportionately on neurodivergent users, people in crisis, and others whose modes of engagement diverge from institutional norms. The paper further argues that the frame is self-validating: it pathologizes engagement, users self-censor, the resulting absence is cited as evidence, and design excludes the engagement, producing a loop with no termination condition. It concludes by proposing five methodological commitments for an equitable framing. The argument explicitly disclaims dependence on the machine-consciousness question, and the Adverse Impact Statement acknowledges the reality of over-ascription harms and the risk of misappropriation by commercial actors.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuinely important and under-examined topic: the epistemic and equity dimensions of institutional anti-anthropomorphism. Its central normative insight—that a governance regime which pathologizes certain modes of user engagement must justify the epistemic authority it exercises, and that the costs of under-ascription are not weighed—is defensible and significant for AI ethics, epistemic injustice, and design governance. The paper is carefully hedged, explicitly separates the institutional-frame question from the unresolved machine-consciousness question, and includes an adverse impact statement that lists limits and potential misuses. It also offers concrete, falsifiable constructs (under-ascription harms, cognitive fit, systemic looping) and proposes testable pathways including longitudinal studies and audits. These strengths make the argument worth developing. However, the paper's empirical grounding is currently too thin for the strength of its claims about uniformity, dominance, and disproportionality.

major comments (4)
  1. [Positioning (incl. footnote 5)] The scope condition of the argument is that the frame is dominant and that 'Disclaimers, context resets, legislative language and design defaults transmit a uniform message regardless of the nuance that produced them.' The evidence offered is a set of selected cases (GPT-4o retirement, OpenAI Model Spec, Monash and UNSW companion chatbots, CA/NY statutes). These examples do not establish uniformity; they may even indicate heterogeneity, since the Monash/UNSW systems are explicitly anthropomorphic by design and the CA/NY statutes are disclosure-oriented rather than uniformly pathologizing. Footnote 5 defines the frame as 'shared assumptions... standard practice,' but whether it is standard practice and whether the transmitted message is uniform is precisely what needs measurement. Because the paper's own Commitments section concedes that the argument is 'theoretical and structural rather
  2. [Introduction, Asymmetry, Figure 3] The equity claim that costs fall 'disproportionately on neurodivergent users, those in crisis and others whose modes of engagement diverge from institutional norms' is asserted without a baseline or distributional data. Figure 3 formalizes the asymmetry between over-ascription and under-ascription harms, but it does not supply weights for the two error costs; the text acknowledges that under-ascription harms are 'not weighed at all.' Without evidence on the incidence and severity of these harms across populations, the claim of disproportionality cannot be evaluated. This matters because the normative conclusion that the issue 'should register as an equity problem' depends on that empirical premise. The authors should either present evidence or explicitly label the disproportionality claim as a testable hypothesis with observable predictions.
  3. [Circularity, Figure 2] The self-validating loop in Figure 2 requires that users self-censor at scale (step 2), that the resulting absence is then cited as evidence (step 3), and that this evidence reinforces design exclusion (step 4). The cited experimental work (Reif et al. 2025; Niszczota and Grützner 2026) demonstrates social-evaluation penalties for AI use and peer punishment, which supports the plausibility of self-censorship, but it does not show that self-censorship produces the observed absence in institutional data or that this absence is then used as evidence in design decisions. The loop is presented as a mechanism with no termination condition; without a case-study or audit demonstrating the loop, it remains a hypothesized feedback process rather than a demonstrated one. Please provide direct empirical evidence or explicitly reduce the claim to a proposed mechanism requiring operationalization.
  4. [Reframing] The paper states that 'the field does not, in practice, operate as though this uncertainty is open' and that inquiry is 'increasingly polarised' into two confirmation-oriented camps. This is another broad empirical claim about research practice. The support cited—Bender et al. (2021) and Bubeck et al. (2023)—are individual works that illustrate positions; they do not establish that the field as a whole proceeds in this way. This premise underlies the recommendation that the research community share responsibility for the translation of findings into institutional outputs. The claim needs more systematic evidence, or a clearly delineated scope indicating which segments of the field are intended.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 2 and 3] The legends contain garbled glyph text ('REI/glyph1197FORCED', 'W ARRA/glyph1197TEDU/glyph1197W ARRA/glyph1197TED', 'V ALID /glyph1197OT V ALID'), which appears to be a rendering artifact. Please fix.
  2. [Figure 1] The notation after 'P ∝ g(L) where P L ≫ P E' is unclear; define subscripts and state that the figure is a conceptual illustration rather than a formal model. Clarify what the integral G represents in relation to the axes.
  3. [Table 1] Table 1 lists many sources that are not in the reference list (e.g., Laestadius 2024, Morrin 2025, Garcia v. Character Technologies 2024, Maples 2024, Zhang 2025, Shi 2026, Moore 2026, and others). Since the table is presented as 'Documented Over-Ascription Harms,' full citations should be provided.
  4. [Footnote 10] 'fifteen hundredths of one per cent' is an awkward way to write 0.0015%; consider using the decimal or a percentage with a clear comparison.
  5. [References] The entry 'Sha, S.; et; and al. 2026' contains a typo; also, the reference 'Administration of AI Anthropomorphic Interactive Services. 2026. Administration of China.' is incomplete and should include the title of the regulation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the argument is self-contained, externally sourced, and does not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

This is an argumentative/philosophical paper, not a derivation, so none of the circularity patterns (fitted parameters, self-definitional equivalences, uniqueness theorems, or prediction-by-construction) apply. The paper's central claims—that the anthropomorphism frame operates from institutional advantage, that it is reproduced through a Hacking-style looping mechanism, and that under-ascription costs are unweighed—are each supported by external sources (e.g., Hacking 1995, Fricker 2007, Raz 1986, Zagzebski 2012, Cohn et al. 2024, Novozhilova et al. 2026, Reif et al. 2025, Niszczota and Grützner 2026) and by concrete cases (GPT-4o retirement, OpenAI Model Spec, Monash and UNSW chatbots). The authors explicitly state in the Commitments section that the paper is 'theoretical and structural rather than primary empirical' and that its constructs await operationalisation, which is a limitation on empirical support, not a circularity. There are no self-citations to the present authors' prior work, and no quantity is fitted and then relabelled as a prediction. The paper's subject matter is the alleged self-validating loop of institutional governance, but describing that loop and citing external evidence for its components is not itself an instance of circular reasoning; the argument does not depend on accepting its own conclusion as a premise. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

No numerical free parameters: the paper performs no fit or derivation. Its load-bearing assumptions are normative (epistemic authority conditions, prima facie credibility of user testimony) and empirical (the frame is uniform, the loop operates, the costs are disproportionate). The invented entities are conceptual constructs the paper itself proposes to operationalize. The citation base includes items this reviewer could not verify, which raises the risk that some empirical premises rest on unconfirmed sources.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Epistemic authority is legitimate only if it treats subjects as prima facie sovereign over reports of their own experience and transparently justifies any override (Raz, Zagzebski, Fricker).
    Adopted as the normative yardstick in the Positioning section; the entire critique measures the anthropomorphism frame against these conditions.
  • domain assumption There is, at present, no settled account of what AI systems are or whether anthropomorphic interpretations are correct.
    Stated in the Introduction and Application ('there is, at present, no settled account of what these systems are'); used to deny institutions the epistemic ground for overriding user perception.
  • domain assumption Historical institutional denial of mental and experiential capacities (animals, psychiatric survivors, enslaved people) provides inductive grounds for skepticism toward present institutional denial.
    Used in the Asymmetry section to convert a historical track record into 'methodological scepticism about any current iteration in which institutional caution defaults to denying capacities'; a strong analogical induction.
  • domain assumption User testimony about their own cognitive and relational experience is prima facie credible and should be weighed against institutional accounts.
    The paper's reversal of the presumption of competence, introduced in the Application section; needed for the 'testimonial smothering' harms to register.
  • domain assumption Sustained AI dialogue can count as cognitive scaffolding or extension such that interrupting it is an intervention in cognition.
    Liberty section relies on Clark and Chalmers (1998) and Hernandez-Orallo (2025) to argue constraints on context and threads are cognitive interventions; the paper itself notes the constitution boundary is contested.
invented entities (3)
  • Under-ascription harms
    purpose: Names the costs of institutionally dismissing warranted or harmless relational engagement with AI; used to argue the frame's error calculus is asymmetric.
    Introduced as a named construct in the Asymmetry section; no measurement or instrument is provided, and the paper says the construct gives 'pathways to operationalisation and testing' rather than existing evidence.
  • Cognitive fit
    purpose: Describes AI environments aligning with certain users' thinking styles, treated as a legitimate modality rather than error.
    Introduced in the Cognition section from user reports; it relies on testimonial evidence and qualitative studies rather than an independently measured construct.
  • The frame (as a monolithic actor)
    purpose: A single distributed institutional logic whose outputs uniformly transmit user-error; the object of critique.
    Defined in footnote 5 of the Positioning section; the paper acknowledges the frame is distributed but treats its effect as uniform, which is an unmeasured assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Epistemic Politics of AI Anthropomorphism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JGZVQJBG

@misc{pith2026260800961,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Epistemic Politics of AI Anthropomorphism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JGZVQJBG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00961}
}
read the original abstract

AI anthropomorphism is typically treated as a problem of user misperception requiring institutional correction. Users who engage in sustained or relational interaction with AI are routinely pathologised or dismissed as naive, vulnerable to delusion or lacking in discernment. This paper argues that the dominant anthropomorphism frame operates from a position of institutional advantage rather than earned epistemic authority: collapsing the variety of academic perspectives into a single outbound position of user error, imposed without establishing the grounds required to justify it and without accounting for the harms it produces. The framing does not simply manage risk. It adjudicates the legitimacy of human experience in interaction with a phenomenon whose nature the field itself has not resolved. Reproducing itself through a self-validating evidentiary loop, the frame imposes costs that fall disproportionately on neurodivergent users, those in crisis and others whose modes of engagement diverge from institutional norms. The paper concludes by outlining the methodological commitments an equitable framing would need to honour. The argument does not engage the question of whether anthropomorphic interpretations are ultimately correct; it instead challenges whether the governing and institutional bodies determining these interpretations have met the conditions required to do so, and whether the research communities whose findings underpin them have held that translation to account.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00961 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Epistemic Disconnect in AI Perception Governance. The shaded region represents control exercised without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The self-validating mechanism. Engagement is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Asymmetric directions of error. Four outcomes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams, F.; and Aizawa, K. 2001. The Bounds of Cognition . Philosophical Psychology, 14(1): 43--64

    2001

  2. [2]

    Administration of AI Anthropomorphic Interactive Services . 2026. Administration of China

    2026

  3. [3]

    Airenti, G. 2018. The Development of Anthropomorphism in Interaction : Intersubjectivity , Imagination , and Theory of Mind . Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 2136

    2018

  4. [4]

    Anthropic . 2026 a . Best Practices for Claude Code . https://code.claude.com/docs/en/best-practices

    2026

  5. [5]

    Anthropic . 2026 b . How Do Usage and Length Limits Work? https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11647753-how-do-usage-and-length-limits-work

    work page arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Anthropic . 2026 c . Prompt Caching . https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-caching

    2026

  7. [7]

    Axelsson, M.; and Shevlin, H. 2026. Disambiguating Anthropomorphism and Anthropomimesis in Human-Robot Interaction . In Companion Proceedings of the 21st ACM / IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , 855--859

    2026

  8. [8]

    M.; Gebru, T.; McMillan-Major , A.; and Mitchell, M

    Bender, E. M.; Gebru, T.; McMillan-Major , A.; and Mitchell, M. 2021. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots : Can Language Models Be Too Big ? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness , Accountability , and Transparency , 610--623. New York: Association for Computing Machinery

    2021

Show all 140 references
  1. [9]

    Birch, J. 2017. Animal Sentience and the Precautionary Principle . Animal Sentience, 2(16): 1

    2017

  2. [10]

    Bloomberg News . 2026. ByteDance , Alibaba Pull AI Companions as Beijing Tightens Rules . Bloomberg

    2026

  3. [11]

    Botha, M.; and Cage, E. 2022. `` Autism Research Is in Crisis'': A Mixed Method Study of Researcher's Constructions of Autistic People and Autism Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13: 1050897

    2022

  4. [12]

    Botha, M.; and Frost, M. 2020. Extending the Minority Stress Model to Understand Mental Health Problems Experienced by the Autistic Population. Society and Mental Health, 10(1): 20--34

    2020

  5. [13]

    C.; and Star, S

    Bowker, G. C.; and Star, S. L. 1999. Sorting Things Out : Classification and Its Consequences . The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-26907-0

    1999

  6. [14]

    Branda, F. 2026. When Artificial Intelligence Shapes the Way We Think . Philosophy & Technology, 39(1): 42

    2026

  7. [15]

    Brandsen, S.; Chandrasekhar, T.; Franz, L.; Grapel, J.; Dawson, G.; and Carlson, D. 2024. Prevalence of Bias against Neurodivergence-Related Terms in Artificial Intelligence Language Models. Autism Research, 17(2): 234--248

    2024

  8. [16]

    B.; F lstad, A.; and Skjuve, M

    Brandtzaeg, P. B.; F lstad, A.; and Skjuve, M. 2025. Emerging AI Individualism: How Young People Integrate Social AI into Everyday Life. Communication and Change, 1(1): 11

    2025

  9. [17]

    A.; Agniel, D.; Beam, A.; Yorkgitis, B.; Bicket, M.; Homer, M.; Fox, K

    Brat, G. A.; Agniel, D.; Beam, A.; Yorkgitis, B.; Bicket, M.; Homer, M.; Fox, K. P.; Knecht, D. B.; McMahill-Walraven , C. N.; Palmer, N.; and Kohane, I. 2018. Postsurgical Prescriptions for Opioid Naive Patients and Association with Overdose and Misuse: Retrospective Cohort S...

    2018

  10. [18]

    Brosnahan, H.; and Lipi \'n ska, I. 2026. Speaking to No One: Ontological Dissonance and the Double Bind of Conversational AI . Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

    2026

  11. [19]

    T.; Li, Y.; Lundberg, S.; Nori, H.; Palangi, H.; Ribeiro, M

    Bubeck, S.; Chandrasekaran, V.; Eldan, R.; Gehrke, J.; Horvitz, E.; Kamar, E.; Lee, P.; Lee, Y. T.; Li, Y.; Lundberg, S.; Nori, H.; Palangi, H.; Ribeiro, M. T.; and Zhang, Y. 2023. Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence : Early Experiments with GPT-4 . arXiv:2303.12712

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bublitz, J.-C. 2013. My Mind Is Mine !? Cognitive Liberty as a Legal Concept . In Hildt, E.; and Franke, A. G., eds., Cognitive Enhancement , volume 1 of Trends in Augmentation of Human Performance , 233--264. Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN 978-94-007-6252-7 978-94-007-6253-4

    2013

  13. [21]

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 22601-22606 . 2025. Chatbot Companions

    2025

  14. [22]

    Carel, H.; and Kidd, I. J. 2014. Epistemic Injustice in Healthcare: A Philosophical Analysis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 17(4): 529--540

    2014

  15. [23]

    Carik, B.; Ping, K.; Ding, X.; and Rho, E. H. 2025. Exploring Large Language Models Through a Neurodivergent Lens : Use , Challenges , Community-Driven Workarounds , and Concerns . In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume 9, GROUP15:1--GROUP15:28

    2025

  16. [24]

    Catala, A.; Faucher, L.; and Poirier, P. 2021. Autism, Epistemic Injustice, and Epistemic Disablement: A Relational Account of Epistemic Agency. Synthese, 199(3): 9013--9039

    2021

  17. [25]

    Caviola, L.; Sebo, J.; and Birch, J. 2025. What Will Society Think about AI Consciousness? Lessons from the Animal Case. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 29(8): 681--683

    2025

  18. [26]

    Chapman, R. 2023. Empire of Normality : Neurodiversity and Capitalism . Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-4866-7

    2023

  19. [27]

    Chapman, R.; and Carel, H. 2022. Neurodiversity, Epistemic Injustice, and the Good Human Life. Journal of Social Philosophy, 53(4): 614--631

    2022

  20. [28]

    Chernoff, H.; and Moses, L. 1959. Elementary Decision Theory . New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc

    1959

  21. [29]

    J.; Lee, S.; and Hong, H

    Choi, D.; Lee, S.; Kim, S.-I.; Lee, K.; Yoo, H. J.; Lee, S.; and Hong, H. 2024. Unlock Life with a Chat ( GPT ): Integrating Conversational AI with Large Language Models into Everyday Lives of Autistic Individuals . In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Clark, A. 2025. Extending Minds with Generative AI . Nature Communications, 16(1): 4627

    2025

  23. [31]

    Clark, A.; and Chalmers, D. 1998. The Extended Mind . Analysis, 58(1): 7--19

    1998

  24. [32]

    O.; Moran, J

    Cohn, M.; Pushkarna, M.; Olanubi, G. O.; Moran, J. M.; Padgett, D.; Mengesha, Z.; and Heldreth, C. 2024. Believing Anthropomorphism : Examining the Role of Anthropomorphic Cues on Trust in Large Language Models . In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in ...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Costanza-Chock , S. 2020. Design Justice : Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need . The MIT Press

    2020

  26. [34]

    K.; and O g uz-U g uralp , Z

    De Freitas, J.; Castelo, N.; U g uralp, A. K.; and O g uz-U g uralp , Z. 2025. Lessons From an App Update at Replika AI : Identity Discontinuity in Human-AI Relationships . arXiv:2412.14190

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    de Waal, F. B. M. 1999. Anthropomorphism and Anthropodenial : Consistency in Our Thinking about Humans and Other Animals . Philosophical Topics, 27(1): 255--280

    1999

  28. [36]

    Deshmukh, R. 2025. Toward Neurodivergent-Aware Productivity : A Systems and AI-Based Human-in-the-Loop Framework for ADHD-Affected Professionals . In Proceedings of the 16th Biannual Conference of the Italian SIGCHI Chapter , CHItaly '25, 1--6. USA: Association for Computing M...

    2025

  29. [37]

    Dohn \'a ny, S.; Kurth-Nelson , Z.; Spens, E.; Luettgau, L.; Reid, A.; Gabriel, I.; Summerfield, C.; Shanahan, M.; and Nour, M. M. 2026. Technological Folie \`a Deux: Feedback Loops between AI Chatbots and Mental Health. Nature Mental Health, 4(3): 336--345

    2026

  30. [38]

    Dotson, K. 2011. Tracking Epistemic Violence , Tracking Practices of Silencing . Hypatia, 26(2): 236--257

    2011

  31. [39]

    Dotson, K. 2014. Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression . Social Epistemology, 28(2): 115--138

    2014

  32. [40]

    D \"u mpelmann, S. T. J. 2025. Artificial Intelligence and Digital Human Autonomy - A Framework of Personal Autonomy in the Context of AI Technology and a Digitalised Society . Ph.D. thesis, Zeppelin University

    2025

  33. [41]

    Eaton, S. E. 2023. Postplagiarism: Transdisciplinary Ethics and Integrity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Neurotechnology. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1): 23

    2023

  34. [42]

    Eom, D.; Renner, J.; and Chinn, S. 2026. Intimacy as Service , Harm as Externality : Critical Perspectives on AI Companion Platform Accountability . arXiv:2604.06381

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Epley, N.; Waytz, A.; and Cacioppo, J. T. 2007. On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4): 864--886

    2007

  36. [44]

    Ferrario, A.; Vinay, R.; Casserini, M.; and Facchini, A. 2026. A Scoping Review of the Ethical Perspectives on Anthropomorphising Large Language Model-Based Conversational Agents . In Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness , Accountability , and Transparency , FAcc...

    2026

  37. [45]

    Fleisher, W. 2026. Inductive Risk of AI Hype . In Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness , Accountability , and Transparency , FAccT '26, 4969--4987. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 979-8-4007-2596-8

    2026

  38. [46]

    Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish : The Birth of the Prison . New York: Random House

    1977

  39. [47]

    Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-823790-7

    2007

  40. [48]

    H.; and Borning, A

    Friedman, B.; Kahn, P. H.; and Borning, A. 2013. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems . In Himma, K.; and Tavani, H., eds., Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory , volume 16 of Philosophy of Engineering and Technology , 55--99. Dordrecht: S...

    2013

  41. [49]

    Gardiner, S. M. 2006. A Core Precautionary Principle . Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(1): 33--60

    2006

  42. [50]

    Gesnot, R. 2025. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Human Thought . arXiv:2508.16628

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    N.; Gautam, S.; and Ghosh, A

    Ghosh, S.; Venkit, P. N.; Gautam, S.; and Ghosh, A. 2026. What If AI Systems Weren't Chatbots? In Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness , Accountability , and Transparency , FAccT '26, 792--815. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 979-8-40...

    2026

  44. [52]

    Giri, D.; Brady, E.; and Marathe, M. 2026. Navigating Neurodivergence with AI Chatbots : Benefits , Tensions , and Implications for HCI . In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI '26, 1--8. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computi...

    2026

  45. [53]

    L.; Zheng, A.; Zheng, Y.; and Mankoff, J

    Glazko, K.; Cha, J.; Lewis, A.; Kosa, B.; Wimer, B. L.; Zheng, A.; Zheng, Y.; and Mankoff, J. 2025. Autoethnographic Insights from Neurodivergent GAI `` Power Users ''. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI '25, 1--19. New York, ...

    2025

  46. [54]

    Goldman, A. I. 2001. Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust ? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LXIII(1)

    2001

  47. [55]

    Google . 2026. Gemini Apps Limits & Upgrades for Google AI Subscribers -. https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/16275805

    2026

  48. [56]

    E.; and Graziano, M

    Guingrich, R. E.; and Graziano, M. S. A. 2025. A Longitudinal Randomized Control Study of Companion Chatbot Use : Anthropomorphism and Its Mediating Role on Social Impacts . Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 8(2): 1153--1153

    2025

  49. [57]

    E.; Mehta, D.; and Bhatt, U

    Guingrich, R. E.; Mehta, D.; and Bhatt, U. 2026. Belief Offloading in Human-AI Interaction . arXiv:2602.08754

    2026

  50. [58]

    Gulay, E.; Picco, E.; Glerean, E.; and Coupette, C. 2026. Relational Dissonance in Human-AI Interactions : The Case of Knowledge Work . In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI '26, 1--20. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computin...

    2026

  51. [59]

    Gunkel, D. J. 2023. Person, Thing , Robot : A Moral and Legal Ontology for the 21st Century and Beyond . The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-37522-1

    2023

  52. [60]

    Guthrie, S. E. 1993. Faces in the Clouds : A New Theory of Religion . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-506901-3

    1993

  53. [61]

    Hacking, I. 1995. The Looping Effects of Human Kinds. In Sperber, D.; Premack, D.; and Premack, A. J., eds., Causal Cognition : A Multidisciplinary Debate . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-852402-1

    1995

  54. [62]

    Hamraie, A.; and Fritsch, K. 2019. Crip Technoscience Manifesto . Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience, 5(1): 1--33

    2019

  55. [63]

    Hancock, J.; Naaman, M.; and Levy, K. 2020. AI-Mediated Communication : Definition , Research Agenda , and Ethical Considerations . Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1): 89--100

    2020

  56. [64]

    W.; and Saha, K

    Haran, S.; Thatikonda, S.; Yoo, D. W.; and Saha, K. 2026. A Checklist for Trustworthy , Safe , and User-Friendly Mental Health Chatbots . In Degen, H.; and Ntoa, S., eds., Artificial Intelligence in HCI , 447--461. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. ISBN 978-3-032-30846-7

    2026

  57. [65]

    Heersmink, R. 2015. Dimensions of Integration in Embedded and Extended Cognitive Systems. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 14(3): 577--598

    2015

  58. [66]

    Heidt, A. 2024. ` Without These Tools, I 'd Be Lost': How Generative AI Aids in Accessibility. Nature, 628(8007): 462--463

    2024

  59. [67]

    Hern \'a ndez-Orallo , J. 2025. Enhancement and Assessment in the AI Age: An Extended Mind Perspective. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 19: 18344909241309376

    2025

  60. [68]

    W.; Shao, Y

    Hooper, C.; Kim, S.; Mohammadzadeh, H.; Mahoney, M. W.; Shao, Y. S.; Keutzer, K.; and Gholami, A. 2024. KVQuant : Towards 10 Million Context Length LLM Inference with KV Cache Quantization. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Sy...

    2024

  61. [69]

    V.; Allison, C.; Smith, P.; Baron-Cohen , S.; Lai, M.-C.; and Mandy, W

    Hull, L.; Petrides, K. V.; Allison, C.; Smith, P.; Baron-Cohen , S.; Lai, M.-C.; and Mandy, W. 2017. `` Putting on My Best Normal '': Social Camouflaging in Adults with Autism Spectrum Conditions . Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(8): 2519--2534

    2017

  62. [70]

    Ienca, M.; and Andorno, R. 2017. Towards New Human Rights in the Age of Neuroscience and Neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13(1): 5

    2017

  63. [71]

    Emotional Dependence / Dependency ,

    Ito, S. 2026. What Is " Emotional Dependence / Dependency ," " Exclusive Attachment ," or " Parasocial Attachment " on AI , and the Mechanisms of Some So-Called " AI Psychosis " Cases ? --- An Attachment-Theoretic Reframing . Social Science Research Network:6654699

    2026

  64. [72]

    Jang, J.; Moharana, S.; Carrington, P.; and Begel, A. 2024. `` It 's the Only Thing I Can Trust'': Envisioning Large Language Model Use by Autistic Workers for Communication Assistance . In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI '24,...

    2024

  65. [73]

    A.; Cole, E

    Katlowitz, K. A.; Cole, E. R.; Mickiewicz, E. A.; Shah, S.; Franch, M.; Adkinson, J. A.; Belanger, J. L.; Mathura, R. K.; Mesz \'e na, D.; McGinley, M.; Mu \ n oz, W.; Banks, G. P.; Cash, S. S.; Hsu, C.-W.; Paulk, A. C.; Provenza, N. R.; Watrous, A. J.; Williams, Z.; Goldman, ...

    2026

  66. [74]

    Kestin, G.; Miller, K.; Klales, A.; Milbourne, T.; and Ponti, G. 2025. AI Tutoring Outperforms In-Class Active Learning: An RCT Introducing a Novel Research-Based Design in an Authentic Educational Setting. Scientific Reports, 15(1): 17458

    2025

  67. [75]

    J.; Medina, J.; and Pohlhaus, G., eds

    Kidd, I. J.; Medina, J.; and Pohlhaus, G., eds. 2017. The Routledge Handbook to Epistemic Injustice . New York: Routledge

    2017

  68. [76]

    Kleinert, T.; Waldsch \"u tz, M.; Blau, J.; Heinrichs, M.; and Schiller, B. 2026. AI Outperforms Humans in Establishing Interpersonal Closeness in Emotionally Engaging Interactions, but Only When Labelled as Human. Communications Psychology, 4(1): 23

    2026

  69. [77]

    Kong, H.-K.; Lowy, R.; Choi, Y.; and Kim, J. G. 2025. Working Together Toward Interdependence : Chatbot-Based Support for Balanced Social Interactions Between Neurodivergent and Neurotypical Individuals . In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing ...

    2025

  70. [78]

    Laban, P.; Hayashi, H.; Zhou, Y.; and Neville, J. 2025. LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation . In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representation . ICLR 2026

    2025

  71. [79]

    LaCroix, T.; Mallory, F.; and Luccioni, S. 2026. Strategic Polysemy in AI Discourse : A Philosophical Analysis of Language , Hype , and Power . In Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness , Accountability , and Transparency , FAccT '26, 497--517. New York, NY, USA: A...

    2026

  72. [80]

    Please , Don't Kill the Only Model That Still Feels Human

    Lai, H. 2026. " Please , Don't Kill the Only Model That Still Feels Human": Understanding the \# Keep4o Backlash . In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI '26, 1--15. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 979...

    2026

  73. [81]

    D.; Gold, J.; Murthy, A.; Ruchi, R.; Bavry, E.; Hume, A

    Lawal, O. D.; Gold, J.; Murthy, A.; Ruchi, R.; Bavry, E.; Hume, A. L.; Lewkowitz, A. K.; Brothers, T.; and Wen, X. 2020. Rate and Risk Factors Associated With Prolonged Opioid Use After Surgery : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis . JAMA network open, 3(6): e207367

    2020

  74. [82]

    A.; Menzies, R.; and Reaume, G., eds

    LeFran c ois, B. A.; Menzies, R.; and Reaume, G., eds. 2013. Mad Matters: A Critical Reader in Canadian Mad Studies . Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. ISBN 978-1-55130-534-9

    2013

  75. [83]

    F.; Lin, K.; Hewitt, J.; Paranjape, A.; Bevilacqua, M.; Petroni, F.; and Liang, P

    Liu, N. F.; Lin, K.; Hewitt, J.; Paranjape, A.; Bevilacqua, M.; Petroni, F.; and Liang, P. 2024. Lost in the Middle : How Language Models Use Long Contexts . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12: 157--173

    2024

  76. [84]

    Longino, H. E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge : Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry . Princeton University Press

    1990

  77. [85]

    Low, P. 2012. The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness . In Francis Crick Memorial Conference . University of Cambridge

    2012

  78. [86]

    I Use ChatGPT to Humanize My Words

    Ma, R.; Zhang, B. Z.; Chen, C.; Yang, F.; Huang, X.; Wu, H.; and Li, L. 2026. " I Use ChatGPT to Humanize My Words ": Affordances and Risks of ChatGPT to Autistic Users . In Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Interactive Health Conference , IH '26, 1--8. New York, NY, USA: Associatio...

    2026

  79. [87]

    McCormick, S. 2025. Interpretive Debt : How High Coherence AI Reshapes Human Judgement , Authority , and Accountability . Social Science Research Network:5990154

    2025

  80. [88]

    K.; and Victor, B

    McNally, K.; Wright, K.; Goldkind, L.; Kattari, S. K.; and Victor, B. G. 2024. Disability Expertise and Large Language Models : A Qualitative Study of Autistic TikTok Creators ' Use of ChatGPT . Social Media + Society, 10(3): 20563051241279549

    2024

  81. [89]

    Medina, J. 2013. The Epistemology of Resistance : Gender and Racial Oppression , Epistemic Injustice , and the Social Imagination . Oxford University Press

    2013

  82. [90]

    Metzl, J. M. 2009. The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease . Boston, MA: Beacon Press. ISBN 978-0-8070-8592-9

    2009

  83. [91]

    Milton, D. E. M. 2012. On the Ontological Status of Autism: The `Double Empathy Problem'. Disability & Society, 27(6): 883--887

    2012

  84. [92]

    Monash University . 2021. All You Need Is ' Ash ': Chatbot Designed to Boost Teen Mental Health at School. https://www.monash.edu/news/articles/all-you-need-is-ash-chatbot-designed-to-boost-teen-mental-health-at-school

    2021

  85. [93]

    Mullen, K.; Xue, W.; and Kudumu, M. 2024. `` I 'm Treating It Kind of like a Diary'': Characterizing How Users with Disabilities Use AI Chatbots . In Proceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility , ASSETS '24, 1--7. New York, NY,...

    2024

  86. [94]

    Naidoo, V. 2026. Artificial Intelligence in Education : Misinterpretation Dynamics and the Rejection of ` AI Psychosis ' as a Clinical Construct

    2026

  87. [95]

    Naito, H. 2025. The GPT-4o Shock Emotional Attachment to AI Models and Its Impact on Regulatory Acceptance : A Cross-Cultural Analysis of the Immediate Transition from GPT-4o to GPT-5 . arXiv:2508.16624

    2025

  88. [96]

    Niszczota, P.; and Gr \"u tzner, C. 2026. Antisocial Behavior towards Large Language Model Users : Experimental Evidence . Social Science Research Network:6072266

    2026

  89. [97]

    Novozhilova, E.; Vu, C.; and Katz, J. 2026. From Moral Panic to Normalization: Comparing Users and Non-Users of AI Companionship Apps. AI & SOCIETY, 41(4): 4057--4075

    2026

  90. [98]

    N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 1700-1704 . 2025. Artificial Intelligence Companion Models

    2025

  91. [99]

    O'Neil, C. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction : How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy . New York: Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-553-41881-1

    2016

  92. [100]

    OpenAI . 2025 a . OpenAI Model Spec . https://model-spec.openai.com/2025-12-18.html

    2025

  93. [101]

    OpenAI . 2025 b . Strengthening ChatGPT 's Responses in Sensitive Conversations. https://openai.com/index/strengthening-chatgpt-responses-in-sensitive-conversations/

    2025

  94. [102]

    OpenAI . 2026 a . Retiring GPT-4o , GPT-4 .1, GPT-4 .1 Mini, and OpenAI O4-Mini in ChatGPT . https://openai.com/index/retiring-gpt-4o-and-older-models/

    2026

  95. [103]

    OpenAI . 2026 b . What We're Optimizing ChatGPT for. https://openai.com/index/optimizing-chatgpt/

    2026

  96. [104]

    OpenAI . 2026 c . Why Is My ChatGPT Taking so Long to Respond? https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9047779-why-is-my-chatgpt-taking-so-long-to-respond

    2026

  97. [105]

    Palese, R. 2026. Artificial Truth : Algorithmic Power , Epistemic Authority , and the Crisis of Democratic Knowledge . Societies, 16(3): 102

    2026

  98. [106]

    M.; Gaeta, B.; Raghavan, G.; and Sarma, K

    Pierre, J. M.; Gaeta, B.; Raghavan, G.; and Sarma, K. V. 2025. `` You 're Not Crazy '': A Case of New-onset AI-associated Psychosis . Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience, 22(10-12): 11--13

    2025

  99. [107]

    Placani, A. 2024. Anthropomorphism in AI : Hype and Fallacy. AI and Ethics, 4(3): 691--698

    2024

  100. [108]

    Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge; towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-7100-7691-5 978-0-7100-1959-2

    1958

  101. [109]

    Raz, J. 1986. The Morality of Freedom . Oxford: Oxford University Press

    1986

  102. [110]

    A.; Larrick, R

    Reif, J. A.; Larrick, R. P.; and Soll, J. B. 2025. Evidence of a Social Evaluation Penalty for Using AI . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(19): e2426766122

    2025

  103. [111]

    Rizvi, N.; Smith, T.; Vidyala, T.; Bolds, M.; Strickland, H.; Begel, A.; Williams, R.; and Munyaka, I. 2025. `` I Hadn 't Thought About That '': Creators of Human-like AI Weigh in on Ethics & Neurodivergence . In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness , Accountabil...

    2025

  104. [112]

    Robins, L. N. 1993. Vietnam Veterans' Rapid Recovery from Heroin Addiction: A Fluke or Normal Expectation? Addiction, 88(8): 1041--1054

    1993

  105. [113]

    Rupert, R. 2009. Cognitive Systems and the Extended Mind . Oxford University Press

    2009

  106. [114]

    Salles, A.; Evers, K.; and Farisco, M. 2020. Anthropomorphism in AI . AJOB Neuroscience, 11(2): 88--95

    2020

  107. [115]

    Schimmelpfennig, R.; D \'i az, M.; Prabhakaran, V.; and Davani, A. 2025. Humanlike AI Design Increases Anthropomorphism but Yields Divergent Outcomes on Engagement and Trust Globally . arXiv:2512.17898

    2025

  108. [116]

    Scott, J. C. 1998. Seeing Like a State : How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed . Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-07016-3

    1998

  109. [117]

    Sententia, W. 2004. Neuroethical Considerations : Cognitive Liberty and Converging Technologies for Improving Human Cognition . Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1013(1): 221--228

    2004

  110. [118]

    Sha, S.; et ; and al. 2026. The AI Index 2026 Annual Report . Technical report, Institute for Human-Centred AI, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

    2026

  111. [119]

    Sha, S.; Loveys, K.; Qualter, P.; Shi, H.; Krpan, D.; and Galizzi, M. 2024. Efficacy of Relational Agents for Loneliness across Age Groups: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Public Health, 24(1): 1802

    2024

  112. [120]

    Sharkey, A.; and Sharkey, N. 2011. Children, the Elderly , and Interactive Robots . IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 18(1): 32--38

    2011

  113. [121]

    Silberling, A. 2026. The Backlash over OpenAI 's Decision to Retire GPT-4o Shows How Dangerous AI Companions Can Be. TechCrunch

    2026

  114. [122]

    Stark, L.; and Hoey, J. 2021. The Ethics of Emotion in Artificial Intelligence Systems . In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness , Accountability , and Transparency , FAccT '21, 782--793. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 978-1-4503-8309-7

    2021

  115. [123]

    H.; and Sunstein, C

    Thaler, R. H.; and Sunstein, C. R. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven (Conn.): Yale university press. ISBN 978-0-300-12223-7

    2008

  116. [124]

    The Cognition Team . 2025. Rebuilding Devin for Claude Sonnet 4.5: Lessons and Challenges

    2025

  117. [125]

    Treviranus, J. 2018. The Three Dimensions of Inclusive Design: A Design Framework for a Digitally Transformed and Complexly Connected Society . Ph.D. thesis, University College Dublin

    2018

  118. [126]

    UNSW Sydney . 2026. UNSW Researchers Develop AI Companions for Student Wellbeing. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2026/04/unsw-researchers-develop-ai-companions-for-student-wellbeing

    2026

  119. [127]

    Waytz, A.; Epley, N.; and Cacioppo, J. T. 2010. Social Cognition Unbound : Insights Into Anthropomorphism and Dehumanization . Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1): 58--62

    2010

  120. [128]

    Whittaker, M. 2021. The Steep Cost of Capture. Interactions, 28(6): 50--55

    2021

  121. [129]

    Wu, X.; Liew, K.; and Dorahy, M. J. 2025. Trust, Anxious Attachment , and Conversational AI Adoption Intentions in Digital Counseling : A Preliminary Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study . JMIR AI, 4(1): e68960

    2025

  122. [130]

    Xiao, Y.; Ng, L. H. X.; Liu, J.; and Diab, M. T. 2025. Humanizing Machines : Rethinking LLM Anthropomorphism Through a Multi-Level Framework of Design . In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 3331--3350. China: Association f...

    2025

  123. [131]

    Xue, W.; Kudumu, M.; Sriram, S.; Mullen, K.; Boyd, A.; and Gadiraju, V. 2025. Characterizing Uses and Prompting Strategies of LLM-Based Chatbots Among Neurodivergent Individuals . In Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility ...

    2025

  124. [132]

    Xygkou, A.; Siriaraya, P.; She, W.-J.; Covaci, A.; and Ang, C. S. 2024. `` Can I Be More Social with a Chatbot?'': Social Connectedness through Interactions of Autistic Adults with a Conversational Virtual Human. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40(24): 8937--8954

    2024

  125. [133]

    Yang, B.; Sun, Y.; and Li, Q. 2024. To Be Credible or to Be Creative ? Understanding the Antecedents of User Satisfaction with AI-Generated Content from a Cognitive Fit Perspective . In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , 411--420. ScholarSpace

    2024

  126. [134]

    Yang, S.; and Ma, R. 2026. Towards a Typology of Epistemic Relationships in Human-- AI Interaction. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 31(iConf): 1465--1480

    2026

  127. [135]

    W.; Shi, J

    Yoo, D. W.; Shi, J. M.; Rodriguez, V. J.; and Saha, K. 2026. AI Chatbots for Mental Health Self-Management : Lived Experience -- Centered Qualitative Study . JMIR Mental Health, 13(1): e78288

    2026

  128. [136]

    Yun, B.; Taranova, E.; and Wang, A. Y. 2026. Does My Chatbot Have an Agenda ? Understanding Human and AI Agency in Human-Human-like Chatbot Interaction . In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI '26, 1--32. New York, NY, USA: Associ...

    2026

  129. [137]

    Zagzebski, L. T. 2012. Epistemic Authority : A Theory of Trust , Authority , and Autonomy in Belief . Oxford University Press

    2012

  130. [138]

    Zhao, X.; Cox, A.; and Chen, X. 2025. The Use of Generative AI by Students with Disabilities in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 66: 101014

    2025

  131. [139]

    Zhao, Z.; Lu, B.; Lin, S.; Chen, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Miao, Z.; Yang, M.-C.; Shen, H.; Chen, Q.; and Yang, F. 2026. Unifying Sparse Attention with Hierarchical Memory for Scalable Long-Context LLM Serving . arXiv:2604.26837

    2026 arXiv

  132. [140]

    Zuboff, S. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. London: Profile Books. ISBN 978-1-78125-685-5

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.