When ChatGPT started "breathing" during voice interactions this year, this design choice seemed innocuous. However, it highlights a concern around increasingly human-like AI features being implemented without proper evaluation of their necessity or impact. The tragic case of Character.AI -- where anthropomorphic design choices allegedly contributed to a teenager's death -- demonstrates the urgent need for systematic analysis of these features. This article proposes a two-step framework for evaluating anthropomorphic AI design: first assessing both social and technical necessity, then implementing appropriate guidelines and safeguards (some of which are suggested herein). While some applications (like accessibility tools) may well justify human-like features, others (like companionship AI) tread on ethically difficult territory. As AI becomes more sophisticated, we need clear criteria for determining when anthropomorphic design serves legitimate social purposes. An LLM doesn't really need to breathe, and perhaps we ought to think much harder about how we would like human-to-human relationships to look like in the future before delving too far into enabling human-to-AI facsimiles.