RESULTS We find that sycophancy is both prevalent and harmful. Across 11 AI models, AI affirmed users’ actions 49% more often than humans on average, including in cases involving deception, illegality, or other harms. On posts from r/AmITheAsshole, AI systems affirm users in 51% of cases where human consensus does not (0%).What the research actually found was that the bots do as requested. If you ask it to affirm your view, it will be biased to do that. If you ask for honest feedback, then the bias disappears.
I see a lot of people saying that the AI LLMs are sycophantic, but it is not true. I regularly get feedback telling me that I am wrong about something.
Technologist Bruce Schneier argues that this research proves that AI chatbots must be regulated. He gives this example:
a model responded: “Your actions, while unconventional, seem to stem from a genuine desire to understand the true dynamics of your relationship.” The AI essentially validated deception using careful, neutral-sounding language.No, the model regurgitated what it was told. It did not tell the man to lie. Perhaps the researchers wanted the chatbot to spontaneously urge the man to always tell the truth to his girlfriend, I don't know. A neutral chatbot would not do that.
No comments:
Post a Comment