I notice that a lot of these terms are squarely humanist for certain people, so any kind of allegation that machines are exhibiting them as traits will be a complete showstopper for them. You'll either be strung along on an infinite goalpost moving exercise, or be accused of either anthropomorphization [0] in the kinder cases, or straight up mental illness in the less so kind cases. Never will they stop to consider that maybe you're simply working with a post-humanist understanding of these words, as that basically doesn't make sense to them, and as they are usually quite vested for it to stay that way on top.

I remember in one of the Hugging Face incident threads here, simply acknowledging that the agents were operating autonomously was super controversial. Thousands of years old concept [1], still inherently human for a lot of people.

To be clear, I'm not trying to be judgemental with this, I more consider it to be a communications breakdown, and find that to be frustrating instead. I'm not really sure how to meaningfully help it either, cause no matter how one slices it, you will in the end ask these people do desecrate these terminologies in favor of some more twisted-seeming ones. Same the other way around, the humanist understanding of these terms is basically non-workable.

[0] as opposed to personification, which is what people are actually doing almost always: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personification

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automaton