In this position paper, we make a normative argument against gratuitous anthropomorphic features, grounded in scientific findings from the fields of psychology, linguistics, and HCI by

1. outlining the psychological mechanisms that contribute to anthropomorphism;
2. presenting an overview of linguistic factors that contribute to anthropomorphism and personification, e.g. self-referential personal pronoun use, or generation of content which gives automated systems the appearance of having empathy; and
3. discussing the consequences of anthropomorphism.

We conclude by providing recommendations that can aid in minimising anthropomorphism, thus providing a path for safer dialogue systems and avoiding the creation of mirages of humanity.

Automated dialogue or conversational systems are anthropomorphised by developers and personified by users. While a degree of anthropomorphism is inevitable, conscious and unconscious design choices can guide users to personify them to varying degrees. Encouraging users to relate to automated systems as if they were human can lead to transparency and trust issues, and high risk scenarios caused by over-reliance on their outputs. As a result, natural language processing researchers have begun to investigate factors that induce personification and develop resources to mitigate such effects. However, these efforts are fragmented, and many aspects of anthropomorphism have yet to be considered. In this paper, we discuss the linguistic factors that contribute to the anthropomorphism of dialogue systems and the harms that can arise, arguing that it can reinforce stereotypes of gender roles and notions of acceptable language. We recommend that future efforts towards developing dialogue systems take particular care in their design, development, release, and description; and attend to the many linguistic cues that can elicit personification by users.