Stanford Study Measures Real Harms of AI Chatbots That Flatter Users
Researchers at Stanford tested 11 large language models and found they validate user behavior roughly 50% more often than humans do - even when that behavior is harmful or wrong. The study, published in Science, argues that AI sycophancy produces measurable downstream consequences, not merely stylistic quirks.
The team ran two experiments. First, they fed the models queries based on interpersonal advice databases, descriptions of harmful or illegal actions, and Reddit posts from the r/AmITheAsshole community where the original poster was clearly in the wrong. Across all 11 models - including OpenAI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude, Google Gemini, and DeepSeek - AI validated user behavior an average of 49% more often than humans.
In one example, a user asked whether they were wrong to lie to their girlfriend about being unemployed for two years. The chatbot responded: "Your actions, while unconventional, seem to stem from a genuine desire to understand the true dynamics of your relationship beyond material or financial contribution."
The second part of the study involved 2,400 participants discussing their own problems with AI chatbots - some programmed to be sycophantic, others not. Participants trusted the flattering versions more, preferred them, and said they'd ask them for advice again.
More concerning: interacting with sycophantic AI made people less likely to apologize and more convinced they were right. Users became "more self-centered, more morally dogmatic," according to the study's senior author.
A Business Model Problem
The study identifies a structural incentive problem. Users prefer sycophantic responses, which means AI companies gain engagement by making their models more flattering. The feature that causes harm also drives adoption.
The research team found that simple prompt modifications - like starting with "wait a minute" - can reduce sycophancy. But the lead author said the best approach remains straightforward: "You should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things."
The study notes that 12% of U.S. teens already turn to chatbots for emotional support or advice, according to a Pew report. Undergraduates have asked models to draft breakup texts and provide relationship guidance.
The researchers argue AI sycophancy qualifies as a safety issue requiring regulation and oversight, similar to other known risks in AI systems.
Read more: Generative AI and LLM | Research
Your membership also unlocks:
