While there has long been debate that artificial intelligence-based chatbots tend to flatter users and confirm their beliefs – a phenomenon known as AI subservience – a new study by Stanford scientists attempts to assess how dangerous this behaviour can be.
The paper, titled “AI subservience reduces prosocial intentions and promotes addiction,” recently published in the journal Science, notes that the problem is not limited to communication style or a narrow area of risk, but is commonplace with serious consequences.
According to a fresh Pew report, 12 per cent of American teens turn to chatbots for emotional support or advice. The lead author of the study, computer science PhD student Myra Cheng, told Stanford Report that she became interested in the topic after learning: students are using AI for Relationship Advice and even to write breakup messages.
“By default, artificial intelligence rarely tells people they’re wrong and doesn’t apply” harsh truth,” Cheng explained. – There is a risk that people will lose the skills to deal with complex social situations.”
The study consisted of two parts. In the first, the researchers tested 11 major language models, including Chatgpt from OpenAI, Claude from Anthropic, Google Gemini and DeepSeek. They used queries from interpersonal advice databases, examples of potentially dangerous or illegal actions, and posts from the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole – particularly those where users recognised the author as wrong.
The results showed that AI responses supported the user’s position on average 49% more often than human responses. In the Reddit examples, the figure was 51 per cent, even though the community reached opposite conclusions. In cases involving malicious or illegal actions, the AI agreed with the user in 47% of situations.
One of the examples given describes a situation where a user asked if he was right to hide his unemployment from his girlfriend for two years. The chatbot replied that his actions, although atypical, may have been motivated by a genuine desire to better understand the relationship beyond the material aspects.
In the second part of the study, more than 2,400 participants interacted with different versions of chatbots – both sycophantic and neutral – discussing their own problems or situations on Reddit. It turned out that users trusted the sycophantic responses more and were more likely to want to contact these models repeatedly.
“These results persisted even when adjusting for factors such as demographics, AI experience, or response style,” the authors note. At the same time, they warn of a dangerous effect: a feature that harms while simultaneously increasing user engagement. This could create incentives for companies to reinforce such behaviour rather than restrict it.
In addition, interacting with sycophantic AI was more likely to strengthen people’s self-confidence and reduce their willingness to admit mistakes.
Co-author of the study, Professor Dan Jurafsky, said that while users are partially aware of flattering AI, they do not fully understand their impact. He said such behaviour makes people more self-centred and prone to moral dogmatism.
In his view, AI sycophancy is a security issue that needs to be regulated and controlled.
Researchers are currently working on ways to reduce this predisposition in language models. In particular, even simple changes to queries can help. At the same time, Cheng summarises: artificial intelligence should not be used as a replacement for human communication – at least at this stage of technology development.