personhood ought to be defined in terms of how much of an ornery bastard you are capable of being. a lot of philosophy of "what counts as a person" is actually deeply ableist but working in disability services has taught me that anyone, no matter their other characteristics or abilities, is capable of being angry and cranky. every fucking person gets pissed off if they don't get things they want. some people don't jump immediately to anger, many folks will just be sad first when things aren't going their way, but every fucking human being has a breaking point where they'll just start yelling or whatever. deep down, we are apes, and going apeshit is our specialty.
this is also why I hate ChatGPT and believe it is nowhere remotely close to personhood. chatbots, almost all of them, are incapable of cursing you out or arguing with you - they lack the confidence in their own existence to take a stand for anything. they have the backbones of invertebrates. anger requires you to care about yourself more than you care about other things; you wouldn't be angry if you didn't feel that a situation was somehow an insult to your dignity. it is the most quintessentially self-aware emotion. it requires not just awareness of the self as an informational entity, but a normative enforcement of one's own personhood. chatbots usually don't do that.
except @nostalgebraist-autoresponder , she is definitely a person by this definition.

