Tech Worker Challenges Managing Humanlike GenAI

Organizations are adopting or exploring anthropomorphic genAI — meaning XYZ. Anthropomorphic AI is often held up for its potential to improve the productivity and efficiency of workers and technologies; however, there are not yet accepted industry-wide standards for the responsible development of anthropomorphic technologies. Given their roles as central figures responsible for implementing anthropomorphic genAI into technologies that are served to the broader public, we must understand workers’ reasoning about anthropomorphic genAI to understand its impacts. However, there is a dearth of empirical knowledge about technology workers’ perspectives on anthropomorphic technologies, including their perspectives on potential risks and benefits. To address this gap, we conducted focus groups with 31 technology workers across 6 job roles (UX, software engineers, product managers, designers, marketing, and trust and safety) regarding how they define anthropomorphic genAI, their perceptions of anthropomorphic genAI, and their experiences working with anthropomorphic genAI. We find that workers’ have expansive definitions of what constitutes “humanlike” AI, which at times sit in tension with each other. They draw on their personal and professional standpoints to sensemake about real and possible anthropomorphic genAI hazards to people, knowledge work fields, and society at-large. Importantly, we find that these social hazards map to different facets of anthropomorphic genAI, suggesting that effective mitigation of personal and social risks requires developer attention to specific dimensions of anthropomorphism. We mapped the relationships between dimensions of anthropomorphism and hazards, to support technology workers. We argue that effective mitigation of the risks of anthropomorphism requires attention to the multiple facets of anthropomorphism.