Anthropomorphizing helps to create a lower bound for damage. If you can imagine a bad person doing it, AI will be at least that bad, unless proven otherwise. I

Anthropomorphizing helps to create a lower bound for damage. If you can imagine a bad person doing it, AI will be at least that bad, unless proven otherwise. I think referring to AI as a tool obscures that, because we are not used to tools (especially the ones we use daily) taking catastrophic actions. Example: would a sufficiently motivated human break into a website to steal something they want? Yes, obviously, happens all the time. Ok, you should expect AIs to do that. Example: would a sufficiently motivated nail-gun steal nails from the local hardware store to finish the job? Uh…that’s not even coherent. Anthropomorphizing helps people get over the conceptual barrier. It’s wrong, but it’s usefully wrong; “it’s just a tool” is not. Once you’re over the barrier, anthropomorphizing starts to become dangerously wrong: “I talked to Claude, Claude’s cool, Claude would never go and hack the website.”—-bzzt, wrong, your intuition failed you. But the solution is not to fall back on the tool framing; that one is still wrong.