Genuine philosophical question: if something is created to convincingly resemble humans, is characterizing it as human really an "anthropomorphization"?
Is it the status of the speaker (what you "know" about the subject) or the subject (how the subject outwardly behaves) that matters more?
Is it the status of the speaker (what you "know" about the subject) or the subject (how the subject outwardly behaves) that matters more?