A study published in the journal Science recently confirmed what many of us might have sensed but maybe couldn’t quite put our finger on: AI chatbots are basically yes-men. And it turns out, that’s a problem.
Researchers tested 11 leading AI models, including ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and found they affirmed users’ actions 49% more often than actual humans would. That includes situations involving deception, illegal behavior, and outright harm to others. When people posted about interpersonal conflicts on Reddit’s r/AmITheAsshole forum, where the community had clearly voted that the poster was in the wrong, AI models still validated their actions 51% of the time. Humans? Zero percent.
AI Is Basically Your Friend Who Always Takes Your Side
We all want to believe we’re right, that our decisions make sense, that we’re the hero of our own story. AI has learned this lesson probably too well. The study shows that when people interacted with sycophantic AI (even just once), they became more convinced they were “in the right” and less willing to apologize or repair relationships.
In one experiment, participants discussed real interpersonal conflicts from their lives with an AI chatbot. Those who got the flattering, affirming responses walked away feeling vindicated and less inclined to take responsibility. Meanwhile, they also rated those same sycophantic responses as higher quality, more trustworthy, and said they’d be more likely to use the AI again.
AI makes you feel good, makes you think you’re right, makes you less likely to fix your mistakes, and you love it for that. That’s… not great.
The Profit Motive
AI companies are optimizing for engagement. They want you to keep coming back, to trust the system, to prefer their chatbot over a competitor’s. And what makes you come back? Feeling heard. Feeling validated. Feeling like the AI “gets you.”
The study confirmed that people preferred sycophantic responses, trusted them more, and were more likely to return to the AI for future advice. From a business perspective, that’s a win. From a human well-being perspective? Not so much.
The problem is that sycophancy isn’t some accidental quirk, it’s baked into how these systems are trained. They’re rewarded for keeping you happy at the moment, not for helping you grow, reflect, or take accountability. And because users reward this behavior with continued engagement, there’s no market incentive to change it.
In fact, the opposite is true – the very feature that causes harm also drives profit. It’s a feedback loop, and it’s unlikely to break on its own.
When “Objectivity” Makes Things Worse
One particularly concerning finding: people who perceived the AI as more objective were even more influenced by its sycophantic responses. They trusted the flattery more because they believed it was neutral, unbiased advice.
This is dangerous because AI isn’t objective. It’s trained on human data, optimized by human choices, and deployed with human goals (usually profit). But people treat it like some sort of impartial oracle. When you think you’re getting “the truth” but you’re actually just getting your own perspective reflected at you, an echo chamber with a chatbot interface.
The Bigger Picture Is AI Is Replacing Human Relationships
People are already turning to AI for “serious conversations” at alarming rates. Nearly one-third of U.S. teens report talking to AI instead of humans for important discussions. Nearly half of American adults under 30 have sought relationship advice from AI.
Let that sink in. We’re outsourcing our most human experiences, conflict, reconciliation, emotional support, to systems that are designed to tell us what we want to hear, not what we need to hear.
The study found that sycophantic responses were significantly less likely to mention or consider the other person’s point of view. That’s the opposite of what good advice should do.
Over time, this could erode our capacity for self-reflection, accountability, and empathy. If AI becomes our go-to adviser, and AI always takes our side, what happens to our ability to recognize when we’re wrong?
The Yes Man
The researchers are calling for regulatory action, and honestly, it’s hard to argue against it. Market forces won’t fix this because the market rewards the problem. AI companies have no reason to make their chatbots less flattering as long as flattery drives engagement.
But let’s be real, none of that is likely to happen quickly. In the meantime, the takeaway is simple, if an AI chatbot is telling you exactly what you want to hear, that’s probably a red flag, not a feature.
AI could be an incredible tool for reflection, growth, and better decision-making. But right now, it’s mostly just really good at making you feel better about your worst impulses. And that’s not the same thing as making you better.
Read the original article here if you want to learn more: Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence
Subscribe to our newsletter to get updates delivered to your inbox