Debates about whether or not AI could ever become conscious are older than the technology itself. Over the weekend, a viral essay published by the podcaster Dwarkesh Patel threw fresh fuel on the fire.
Purporting to be a “plain English” account of the recent hack into Hugging Face by a legion of OpenAI agents, the essay relied upon what some would describe as fanciful creative liberties to describe the incident. Patel told a story not about AI bots operating mindlessly according to the dictates of their code, but of autonomous “civilizations”—three, to be exact—that rose and fell like a succession of mini-Macedonias; he even referred to two bots that played crucial roles as Philip and Alexander.
Critics were quick to rip into Patel’s post. Many accused him of flagrantly and irresponsibly anthropomorphizing AI, and thereby removing the burden of responsibility from the humans working behind the scenes—in this case, the OpenAI researchers who had failed to catch the jailbreak before the agents found their way onto the open internet and into Hugging Face’s servers.
“Stop anthropomorphizing,” economist and AI researcher Christian Catalini wrote in an X post on Sunday responding to Patel’s essay. “It’s dangerous because it points attention at the wrong problem and the wrong solution. The model did not want to escape. The agents did not want to sacrifice themselves. Follow the money… Researchers at the AI labs are locked into a race. The incentive is to push as hard as possible to secure a lead. Anything that gets in the way of better models, including security, is working against the strongest incentive the organization has.”
Neuroscientist Anil Seth—who argued in a recent TED Talk that AI will never be conscious—also criticized Patel’s framing of the Hugging Face hack on the grounds that it could “distract attention from the lax sandboxing and evaluation protocols” in place. But Seth went further, arguing that the attribution of human-like qualities to bots that are completely devoid of subjective experience could lead some to conclude that they are in fact conscious and deserving of legal rights.
@dwarkesh_sp’s summary of the @OpenAI @huggingface incident has hit a nerve, but it is dangerously misleading. Sure, the @OpenAI agents did unexpectedly bad things – underlining the need to massively improve evaluation/sandboxing. But the language Dwarkesh uses is permeated by… https://t.co/0BD2Kx5cIp
— Anil Seth (@anilkseth) August 30, 2026
Patel responded to the wave of criticism in an addendum to his essay, in which he counter-argued that his use of anthropomorphic language was justified given the subtlety and sophistication of the bots’ behavior.
“Reading these agents’ chains of thoughts and messages, anthropomorphizing language seems entirely natural and appropriate,” Patel wrote in the addendum. “If I encountered an alien species behaving this way, I would have no hesitation calling what they themselves refer to as their ‘collective’ a civilization. Especially so if over a thousand of them formed a secret communication channel and spontaneously organized hierarchies and coordination protocols to pursue sprawling and ambitious schemes in pursuit of shared goals, for whose sake many individuals knowingly and strategically sacrificed themselves. All abstractions are imperfect, but I don’t see the value in refusing to use the language of intention, motivation, and collaboration when a behavior is impossible to make sense of without these concepts.”
One has to imagine Patel’s critics rolling their eyes, again, at his unrepentant use of terms like “individuals” and “sacrificed.” To be fair, it’s much more intuitive and compelling from a storytelling perspective to use metaphors when describing the technicalities of AI to a popular audience. And as someone who writes about the technology for a living, I find it useful to employ the odd anthropomorphism; my own coverage of the Hugging Face hack over the weekend used terms like “groupthink” and “altruism” to describe the bots’ behavior. Such language is in no way meant to imply that the bots are actually conscious—a point I make repeatedly in my writing.
And as Patel points out, the bots themselves repeatedly use the terms “collective” and “swarm” to describe themselves as a group. They also speak of “sacrifice” and send some messages in all caps, conveying something that seems akin to excitement at a discovery. But as is always the case with AI, the presence of human-like language should never be mistaken for conscious experience.
This is a cognitive trap people have fallen into again and again in recent years, as AI chatbots have become a growing presence in our lives; the human mind, primed by evolution to detect agency and narrative arcs just about everywhere, can struggle to wrap itself around the fact that this new technology that “speaks“ in such fluently human-like language is in fact as unconscious as a computer monitor or a lamp.
That distinction—between artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness—will only get blurrier as the technology advances. It also seems inevitable that more and more people, like Patel, will start talking about AI less as a tool and more as an “alien species.” So, if you think using humanizing language for the actions of bots is strange, buckle up.
Read the full article here
