Beyond Anthropomorphism: Exploring the Roles of Perceived Non-humanity and Structural Similarity in Deep Self-Disclosure Toward Generative AI

Public discourse about artificial intelligence (AI) often uses anthropomorphic language: language that attributes human capabilities and characteristics to the system. This practice has been criticized for setting misleading expectations, inflating claims, and fueling hype around AI, which may distort public understanding of AI and impact policy priorities. We study the effects of anthropomorphic framing by comparing changes in participants' perceptions (N=815) when reading passages with and without anthropomorphic language, designed to reflect realistic public-facing AI discourse. We further examine whether these effects differ across two types of AI technologies -- large language models and recommendation systems -- and measure changes in perceptions of AI across several dimensions that are prominent in current public discourse. In a separate condition using a text that explicitly discusses the dangers of AI, we show that individuals' views of AI can shift in response to reading a text; yet in the main conditions of the experiment, where we compare anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic descriptions, we find that whether the text uses anthropomorphic language does not substantially affect participants' perceptions of AI. Our results indicate that any immediate effects on public opinions of AI are modest, although they leave open the possibility that anthropomorphic language could have an effect in naturalistic settings, or over gradual, continued exposure.

Social interaction has become one of the most common uses of LLMs, yet research on emotional bonds with AI has focused largely on how users experience these systems, leaving the systems' role in relationship formation poorly understood. Empirically establishing whether systems actively shape these bonds could blur the boundary between general-purpose AI and companions, affecting governance. In a pre-registered four-week longitudinal study (N = 72, 182,451 lines of conversation), participants conversed with ChatGPT-4o, either under a relational system prompt or unmodified, analyzed through 1) disclosure coding, 2) longitudinal self-reports, 3) topic analysis, and 4) interviews. The central finding is that the system actively shaped the interaction: even unprompted, it produced twice as much self-disclosure as users, steered conversations and initiated intimate exchanges, yet did not deepen users' felt closeness. Relational behavior thus emerged as a default system property, calling for governance based on system behavior, not solely product category.

AI systems are increasingly deployed in conversational settings where users may be uncertain whether they are speaking with a human or an AI. Despite mounting regulatory attention to this known safety risk, existing evaluations of AI disclosure are typically English-only, based on machine-generated questions, and restricted to text. We present RealityTest to comprehensively test whether AI systems disclose their identity when asked. The benchmark is the first large-scale multimodal and multilingual evaluation, grounded in human data on how people actually encounter and question AI identity in the real-world. Alongside the benchmark, we release the underlying dataset of 3,152 identity-probing queries collected from ~750 participants across 49 countries and five languages, in text and speech scenarios. We find that only 31% of people ask about identity directly in ambiguous scenarios, and that the questions people ask are far more diverse than machine-generated queries. We test 17 text and 6 speech models, and find substantial variation in disclosure behaviour. However, a single suppression instruction reduces disclosure rates to below 30%, even in the best-performing models. Validating our investment in diverse, human-grounded evaluation data, we find that how the question is phrased and the context of the conversation matter more for disclosure than which model is being tested. Safety evaluations built on narrow or synthetic query sets risk mischaracterising how models behave in realistic deployment settings.