📚 Read the full issue here: cell.com/trends/cogni...
📖 Our article here: doi.org/10.1016/j.ti...
📝 And the pre-print here: osf.io/preprints/ps...

Thanks! Excited to read your book.

Cool! Thank you for sharing!

Thank you!!

This is still a working paper, so please let us know if you have any feedback!

Check out the full paper here: osf.io/preprints/ps...

With @merylye.bsky.social Laura Globig @rmpillai.bsky.social @hellovic.bsky.social @jayvanbavel.bsky.social

We hope this research informs the creation of AI systems that broaden users’ perspectives instead of reinforcing their biases.

The very qualities that are thought to make AI persuasive, such as its ability to provide targeted facts and evidence, may also make it an effective tool for creating elaborate rationalizations of one’s beliefs.

While AI chatbots have been lauded for their ability to encourage more accurate viewpoints and debunk misinformation, our work suggests that people may prefer to use AI to marshal evidence in support of their pre-existing beliefs.

AI companies may face a tradeoff between creating engaging AI systems that foster echo chambers or creating less engaging AI systems that are healthier for users and public discourse.

Altogether, these results suggest that people’s preference for and blindness to sycophantic AI may risk creating AI "echo chambers" that increase polarization and overconfidence.

Different dimensions of sycophancy had different effects:
-The one-sided presentation of facts primarily impacted extremity & certainty
-Validation primarily impacted enjoyment & perceptions of bias