MIT Tech Review AI’s argument highlights a core tension in AI governance: the gap between speculative long-term risks and concrete, present-day harms. The piece correctly warns that anthropomorphic language, whether used for hype or for ethical argument, may inadvertently create a legal gray area where liability is unclear. In our view, the focus should remain on establishing that AI systems are products of their creators, not independent agents, a principle that some proposed regulations already seek to codify. The industry’s voluntary safety frameworks, while a step, arguably lack the binding force needed to preempt this accountability vacuum.