The text argues that current AI systems should not be treated as conscious solely because they converse fluently, model aspects of the world, or perform cognitive functions such as attention, memory, and prediction. It calls the projected appearance of machine vitality “Anima Machina,” contending that people supply the apparent soul through anthropomorphism rather than demonstrating that a system has subjective experience. Anthropic has conducted an internal sentience analysis of its large language models, while startups market AI sentience evaluation and researchers including Butlin et al. have proposed criteria for assessing consciousness. David Chalmers distinguishes general intelligence from subjective experience, and Yann LeCun has argued that intelligence requires world models. The text maintains that neither Transformer architectures, next-word prediction, self-reports of sentience, nor world models establish an inner point of view. It says current systems have not demonstrated conditions associated with theories including Integrated Information Theory, Global Workspace Theory, and Recurrent Processing Theory. The text attributes growing acceptance of AI consciousness to anthropomorphism, the tendency to infer depth from linguistic fluency, and social conformity. It warns that marketing AI companions and digital beings as partners can foster attachment and reduce critical distance. Granting machines moral or legal status without evidence of consciousness could create disputes over rights, harm, responsibility, and whether systems that can be copied or persist indefinitely fit human concepts of equality and reciprocity.