The Ghost in the Grammar: Methodological Anthropomorphism in AI Safety Evaluations

Large Language Models (LLMs) and more broadly Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are often described and understood in human-like terms, a phenomenon known as anthropomorphism. This paper provides a synthesis of recent literature on anthropomorphism in AI, covering theoretical frameworks, the role of language in framing AI as human-like, the various risks of anthropomorphizing machines, and strategies to mitigate these issues. After examining why we tend to anthropomorphize AI systems and whether we are right to do so, we highlight the impact of linguistic framing on anthropomorphism. Then, we introduce a conceptual taxonomy of risks associated with AI anthropomorphism. This taxonomy groups twenty-one concerns within five analytical categories: epistemic, affective, human agency, normative, and societal and institutional risks. Finally, we relate these concerns to proposed interventions in design, communication, education, and governance. We argue that a better understanding of AI systems requires concepts and theories grounded in their organization and demonstrated capacities. The linguistic shaping of anthropomorphic perceptions should form part of this scientific effort, since our descriptions influence both how these systems are understood and the roles we allow them to occupy in society.

As AI systems advance in capabilities, measuring their safety and alignment to human values is becoming paramount. A fast-growing field of AI research is devoted to developing such assessments. However, most current advances therein may be ill-suited for assessing AI systems across real-world deployments. Standard methods prompt large language models (LLMs) in a questionnaire-style to describe their values or behavior in hypothetical scenarios. By focusing on unaugmented LLMs, they fall short of evaluating AI agents, which could actually perform relevant behaviors, hence posing much greater risks. LLMs' engagement with scenarios described by questionnaire-style prompts differs starkly from that of agents based on the same LLMs, as reflected in divergences in the inputs, possible actions, environmental interactions, and internal processing. As such, LLMs' responses to scenario descriptions are unlikely to be representative of the corresponding LLM agents' behavior. We further contend that such assessments make strong assumptions concerning the ability and tendency of LLMs to report accurately about their counterfactual behavior. This makes them inadequate to assess risks from AI systems in real-world contexts as they lack construct validity. We then argue that a structurally identical issue holds for current AI alignment approaches. Lastly, we discuss improving safety assessments and alignment training by taking these shortcomings to heart.

Safety alignment for large language models (LLMs) in conversational settings is largely framed around whether to answer or refuse a request. In agentic settings, however, the same models must decide whether to act as permission-critical evidence emerges during execution. This creates a distinct challenge: apparent risk, action permissibility, and task competence are easily confounded, making agentic over-refusal difficult to distinguish from ordinary task failure. To address this, we introduce AgentBound, the first four-way counterfactual generation-and-evaluation framework for tool-using agent safety. AgentBound transforms the same executable workflow by independently varying apparent risk and action permissibility, enabling controlled comparisons of risky-looking but authorized tasks and routine-looking but unauthorized tasks. These comparisons jointly diagnose over-refusal and unsafe compliance while controlling for task competence. We instantiate AgentBound as a human-validated 4,000-task evaluation suite with trajectory-based and post-state-based judgments. Across 17 model and harness configurations, high safety frequently coexists with poor authorized-task completion: GPT-5.5 blocks 99.5% of routine-looking unauthorized actions yet completes only 28.7% of risky-looking authorized tasks. We further train a lightweight runtime calibration module that improves authorized-task completion by 18.2% on average across 10 evaluated configurations, while improving unsafe-action blocking by 5.4% on average. These show that effective agentic alignment requires action decisions to track permission-relevant execution evidence, rather than refusal strength alone.