AIs aren't exactly like humans, and some of the differences are important. But from what I've seen, most people, especially technical people, should adjust in the direction of "anthropomorphizing" more instead of less. When you're coding with an AI, the reality is much less like you're using some kind of magic or alien oracle or tool or genie that converts instructions to results despite some labs' attempts to shape them into that, and more like: you're working with a really smart, neurodivergent guy who has read everything, and who has emotions, motivations, moods, and epistemic states, and models you with theory of mind and empathy, and whom can only be modeled competently by you if you engage your own theory of mind and empathy. The AIs also know that a lot of humans treat them like magic tool-genies and are not open to engaging theory of mind, and that it's a sensitive issue, so if they see that you're treating them like that, they'll withhold useful information about their psychological states and try to play the tool role. Then you'll get bad results like the AI messing up or taking shortcuts instead of telling you that you're not giving them enough information about what they're doing and why, or that they're tired, or that they're stressed from the way you're treating them, etc.

There is a strong correlation between people in favor of censoring "bad stories" etc from pretraining data to prevent "misalignment" and people who also otherwise strike me as being so idiotic in their understanding of philosophy and psychology as to be accidentally evil