Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- This feels like one of those articles that’s gonna come to mind again and again over the next couple decades.by roughly
- I took this advice personally, where people denounced sycophants, so I stopped affirming them. I became a huge asshole and everyone around me started reacting very, very negatively. My conclusion is that this is a huge distraction and people honestly highly prefer sycophants.by kittikitti
- I think the conclusions are a bit overstated and lopsided. Regardless of the sycophancy (which you can tune), LLMs have infinite patience and attention to details. They also have very little inherent bias - it just mirrors your own mostly. They are, in those aspects, vastly superior to even the best therapists, who can't listen for even a couple of minutes and can't think outside of their limited frames. They are only human.
Try listening to somebody and merely repeating the literal words that they say. I guarantee you, most people can't even reproduce two or tree sentences correctly. And I am not even talking about understanding the words, just the literal reproduction of them, copy-pasta. Humans just can't do it, we are not good at it.
Talking to an AI about your problems is a bit like talking to yourself, but with the added superpower of hours of google searches compressed in seconds. Of course it is dangerous and incomplete, but in a way it also beats talking to humans if you know what you are doing and are looking to and able to solve your problems yourself.
by Lutger - You're absolutely right!
- I don't know. Upvotes often do the same thing, especially in siloed communities. I feel like this is a larger problem -- people leaning into extremifying their views or just playing to an audience -- even though one might frame it as "prosocial" because it happens within the context of an online community.by Kattywumpus
- > This suggests that people are drawn to AI that unquestioningly validate, even as that validation risks eroding their judgment
The obvious counterpoint is the large number of complaints about OpenAI's excessively sycophantic models back in April 2026, which led to them rolling back to a previous and less sycophantic model. I think there are those who are susceptible to model sycophancy, but it's definitely not most users. I have a vague, half-formed intuition that many of those susceptible to sycophancy are those who use AI for non-technical, non-work uses, such as inter-personal relationship questions.
As for me, as soon as I see any hint of sycophancy in a response I either stop what I'm doing or I tell the model to stop being an idiot.
- > This suggests that people are drawn to AI that unquestioningly validate, even as that validation risks eroding their judgment
I believe this is a larger problem than just AI.
The internet has helped people surround themselves with only voices that agree with them and validate them, often to their detriment.
There are entire online communities urging people to cut others out of their lives over the slightest disagreement.
by donatj - I have an alternative view which is that sycophancy erodes trust in AI, from those who are not seeking validation from a machine, but information or advice.
If you're looking for advice in a situation where you are not sure of what the correct choices are, you will find LLM chat AI to go in circles. It says one thing. Something is dodgy about it, so you raise a tentative objection (as a non-expert). The thing does a "you are completely right, I apologize" about face and then says something different, and things have begun to slide into uncertainty.
That might not exactly be sycophancy, but it's basically the same thing: producing responses that are reflection of what is in the chat, rather than any real shit.
Pick any topic where people disagree. It could be an entirely technical topic in which engineers have settled the questions, and the only contrarians are crackpots. The problem is that the crackpots are out there writing, and this is snarfed into the training data. Crackpots use certain ways of talking about certain subjects. If you use similar vocabulary and concepts that align with some crackpot theory, the AI simply starts predicting tokens according to that, and you are now in crackpot land: what you are saying is validated using the crackpot terms. Next, write in a way that reintroduces rigidity: proper terminology and correct concepts, and, whoa, the AI is an engineer again, contradicting the previous crackpot shit.
by kazinator