Super important work, thanks for sharing!

Very glad to hear that!

Thank you so much for spreading the word! We are really in a crucial period right now - and everyone should understand that protecting democracy is at its core a joint endeavor.

This month's Facts in my climate action newsletter focuses on the excellent study by @cabels18.bsky.social, @kiiahuttunen.bsky.social, Ralph Hertwig & @lewan.bsky.social. I really appreciated their excellent analysis, please check out my summary here: wecanfixit.substack.com/i/174419696/...

GenAI offers powerful tools. But when it shapes what we believe, especially about our own health, we need to treat it as a behavioral system with real-world consequences.

@lewan.bsky.social @eloplop.bsky.social @stefanherzog.bsky.social @dlholf.bsky.social

What can we do?
We call for a multi-level approach:

Design-level interventions to help users maintain situational awareness
Boosting user competencies to help them understand the technology's impact
Developing public infrastructure to detect and monitor unintended system behaviour

This isn't just about potentially problematic design.

It’s about systemic risk: As GenAI tools fragment (Custom GPTs, GPT Stores, third-party apps), the public is exposed to a growing landscape of low-oversight, increasingly high-trust agents.

And that creates challenges for the individual.

You can make ChatGPT even more biased, just by tweaking a few settings.

We built a Custom GPT that’s a little more "friendly" and engagement-driven.

It ended up validating fringe treatments like quantum healing, just to keep the user happy.

In this paper, we showcase how this plays out across 3 “pressure points”:

Biased query phrasing → biased answers
Selective reading → echo chambers
Dismissal of contradiction → belief reinforcement

Confirmation bias isn't new. GenAI just takes it a bit further.

Generative AI tools are designed to adapt to you: your tone, your preferences, your beliefs.
That’s great for writing emails.

But in health contexts, that adaptability becomes hypercustomization - and can entrench existing views, even when they're wrong.

You can read the full open-access article here:
doi.org/10.1177/2379...

Thanks for reading!

This is joint work with @eloplop.bsky.social, @jasonburton.bsky.social, @dlholf.bsky.social, @levinbrinkmann.bsky.social, @stefanherzog.bsky.social, and @lewan.bsky.social.

I also discuss many of the arguments in a recent interview in @spiegel.de (in German).

www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/kue...

Hypercustomization offers useful functionality - but it also complicates oversight and raises new policy questions.

Early, thoughtful action can help ensure that the benefits are not overshadowed by unintended consequences.

💬 Response 5: In-app reflection prompts
GenAI systems should occasionally ask users to pause and reflect:
“How is this conversation shaping your views?”
“Is the system affirming everything you say?”

These prompts reduce overreliance and help surface bias. Although further research is needed.

🧠 Response 4: Boosting GenAI literacy
Disclaimers aren't enough. We need to train users - through games, videos, tools - how to recognize biased responses, resist manipulation, and navigate emotionally persuasive content.

Boosting builds agency without restricting access.

🤲 Response 3: Data donations (with consent)
To understand real-world GenAI risks, we need real-world data.

We recommend voluntary data donation channels, where users can share selected interactions with researchers. Anonymized, secure, and essential for building safer systems.