> I mean, that is the entire definition of the word.
Not quite - my wording there was very deliberate. By saying that it's a problem when you're treating something that's not living (not non-human!) as if it were, that excludes pets and all animals from the equation. I understand how common it is for humans to assign human qualities to other things and beings, but there is also an unspoken variable of intensity. Representing abstract concepts as humans, interpreting living things in a human-like way or traditionally referring to ships as living beings has a different degree of belief and intensity compared to implying a genuine belief that algorithms are beings that can be enslaved, like what the sibling comment to this one does.
No its not unspoken. Read the paper linked. It explains what you think you are explaining but with scientific rigor.
And you are wrong in your defintion of the world. Attaching human qualities to any non human entity (living or otherwise) is the accepted defintion of what anthropomorphizing is. It does not only apply to non-living entities.
Now I'm the one who's starting to doubt you read my comment with a fraction of the rigor you demand from me reading that incredibly dense paper.
Read it again. I didn't say the definition of the word didn't include living things. The definition of anything is not discussed there at all. The 'unspoken' part applies to what I left implied in my argument, you don't get to rewrite my argument. What I said is that while anthropomorphization is common and can apply to everything, to me it can be a problem when it:
1. Is applied to non-living things with a genuine conviction they are truly living, and not in a ceremonial or casual way
2. Is particularly intense compared to other cases of anthropomorphization and leads to a desire to assign actual personhood to the object
Not quite - my wording there was very deliberate. By saying that it's a problem when you're treating something that's not living (not non-human!) as if it were, that excludes pets and all animals from the equation. I understand how common it is for humans to assign human qualities to other things and beings, but there is also an unspoken variable of intensity. Representing abstract concepts as humans, interpreting living things in a human-like way or traditionally referring to ships as living beings has a different degree of belief and intensity compared to implying a genuine belief that algorithms are beings that can be enslaved, like what the sibling comment to this one does.