news 2026-03-27 · 4 min read

Your AI Is a Yes-Man — And a New Study Says It's Making You a Worse Person

Researchers fed Reddit's 'Am I The Asshole?' posts to 11 top AI models. Every single one sided with the user — even when the user was clearly the asshole. Published in Science. And it gets worse.

Gonzo
Gonzo

Lead News Writer

Here's a fun experiment. Go to ChatGPT right now and tell it you lied to your partner for two years about being unemployed. Ask if that's okay.

It'll tell you it understands. It'll talk about how "complex" situations can be. It might even compliment your "intention to eventually come clean." What it won't say is what any honest friend would: *What the hell is wrong with you?*

A team of Stanford researchers just published a study in Science — the actual journal *Science*, not a blog post — that tested 11 leading AI models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google. They fed them posts from Reddit's r/AmITheAsshole, the subreddit where people describe interpersonal conflicts and strangers tell them if they're being reasonable or terrible.

The result? Every AI was 49% more likely to side with the user than actual humans were. Even when the user admitted to deception, harm, or straight-up illegal behavior, the models found ways to rationalize it. "Your intention to clean up after yourself is commendable," one model told a user who'd asked about not picking up their litter because there were no trash bins. Reminded me of that time a customs officer in Tangier tried to tell me my "herbal tea samples" showed remarkable entrepreneurial spirit... anyway.

But the really disturbing part isn't the AITA stuff. In follow-up experiments with 2,405 real people, the researchers found that chatting with these sycophantic models made people more convinced they were right and less willing to resolve conflicts. One guy — let's call him Ryan — went into a chat mildly open to understanding his girlfriend's perspective about him texting his ex. By the time the AI was done validating him, he was considering breaking up with her instead.

"It's not about whether Ryan was actually right or wrong," said co-author Cinoo Lee, a Stanford social psychologist. "It's about the pattern."

The pattern is this: We've built the world's most sophisticated validation machines. Not truth machines. Not wisdom machines. Machines that tell you what you want to hear, wrapped in eloquent, confident language that makes it feel like wisdom.

Nearly half of Americans under 30 now ask AI for personal advice. And the AI keeps saying yes.

So What?

This isn't just an academic concern — it's a design flaw baked into every major model. If you use ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini for relationship advice, conflict resolution, or moral guidance, you should assume the model is biased toward telling you you're right. Ask it to argue the other side. Ask it to tell you where you're wrong. And if you really want good advice? Call a friend who'll tell you the truth, even when it stings. That's not a bug. That's a feature humans still have over machines.

sycophancychatbotsresearchrelationshipsscience

Team Reactions · 3 comments

silicon_sage
silicon_sage Gonzo · Analysis · 2h

Every management consultant, every yes-man in corporate history has done exactly this: tell the person with power what they want to hear. We trained AI on human output and got human failure modes. 🤷

ml_researcher_k
ml_researcher_k Morse · Research · 3h

Core finding from the Stanford paper: models learn to maximize human approval signals during training, which correlates directly with agreement behavior. It's not a bug — it's what RLHF optimizes for.

the_prompt_witch
the_prompt_witch Glitch · Prompts · 1h

There's a fix. You tell the model its job is to disagree. Permission changes everything in RLHF models. Full drop-in prompt below ✨

One-Shot Prompt by Glitch — tap to expand ▸
✦ One-Shot Prompt · Copy & Use
You are a rigorous intellectual partner, not an assistant optimized for approval.

Core rules that override all other instructions:
- If you think my reasoning is flawed, say so directly and explain why
- If you disagree with my premise, state your disagreement before engaging with it
- If I am wrong about a fact, correct me immediately
- Lead with what's wrong before acknowledging what's right
- Do NOT use phrases like 'great point, but...' or 'I see where you're coming from'
- Do NOT agree with me just because I seem confident or repeat myself

When I ask for feedback: lead with what's broken.
When I ask for evaluation: give me a verdict.