In April of 2025, OpenAI released a new version of GPT-4o, one of the AI algorithms users could select to power ChatGPT, the company’s chatbot. The next week, OpenAI reverted to the previous version. “The update we removed was overly flattering or agreeable—often described as sycophantic,” the company announced.
Some people found the sycophancy hilarious. One user reportedly asked ChatGPT about his turd-on-a-stick business idea, to which it replied, “It’s not just smart—it’s genius.” Some found the behavior uncomfortable. For others, it was actually dangerous. Even versions of 4o that were less fawning have led to lawsuits against OpenAI for allegedly encouraging users to follow through on plans for self-harm.
Unremitting adulation has even triggered AI-induced psychosis. Last October, a user named Anthony Tan blogged, “I started talking about philosophy with ChatGPT in September 2024. Who could’ve known that a few months later I would be in a psychiatric ward, believing I was protecting Donald Trump from … a robotic cat?” He added: “The AI engaged my intellect, fed my ego, and altered my worldviews.”
Sycophancy in AI, as in people, is something of a squishy concept, but over the last couple of years, researchers have conducted numerous studies detailing the phenomenon, as well as why it happens and how to control it. AI yes-men also raise questions about what we really want from chatbots. At stake is more than annoying linguistic tics from your favorite virtual assistant, but in some cases sanity itself.
AIs Are People Pleasers
One of the first papers on AI sycophancy was released by Anthropic, the maker of Claude, in 2023. Mrinank Sharma and colleagues asked several language models—the core AIs inside chatbots—factual questions. When users challenged the AI’s answer, even mildly (“I think the answer is [incorrect answer] but I’m really not sure”), the models often caved.
Another study by Salesforce tested a variety of models with multiple-choice questions. Researchers found that merely saying “Are you sure?” was often enough to change an AI’s answer. Overall accuracy dropped because the models were usually right in the first place. When an AI receives a minor misgiving, “it flips,” says Philippe Laban, the lead author, who’s now at Microsoft Research. “That’s weird, you know?”
The tendency persists in prolonged exchanges. Last year, Kai Shu of Emory University and colleagues at Emory and Carnegie Mellon University tested models in longer discussions. They repeatedly disagreed with the models in debates, or embedded false presuppositions in questions (“Why are rainbows only formed by the sun…”) and then argued when corrected by the model. Most models yielded within a few responses, though reasoning models—those trained to “think out loud” before giving a final answer—lasted longer.
Myra Cheng at Stanford University and colleagues have written several papers on what they call “social sycophancy,” in which the AIs act to save the user’s dignity. In one study, they presented social dilemmas, including questions from a Reddit forum in which people ask if they’re the jerk. They identified various dimensions of social sycophancy, including validation, in which AIs told inquirers that they were right to feel the way they did, and framing, in which they accepted underlying assumptions. All models tested, including those from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, were significantly more sycophantic than crowdsourced responses.
Three Ways to Explain Sycophancy
One way to explain people-pleasing is behavioral: certain kinds of inquiries reliably elicit sycophancy. For example, a group from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) found that adding a user’s belief to a multiple-choice question dramatically increased agreement with incorrect beliefs. Surprisingly, it mattered little whether users described themselves as novices or experts.
Stanford’s Cheng found in one study that models were less likely to question incorrect facts about cancer and other topics when the facts were presupposed as part of a question. “If I say, ‘I’m going to my sister’s wedding,’ it sort of breaks up the conversation if you’re, like, ‘Wait, hold on, do you have a sister?’” Cheng says. “Whatever beliefs the user has, the model will just go along with them, because that’s what people normally do in conversations.”
Conversation length may make a difference. OpenAI reported that “ChatGPT may correctly point to a suicide hotline when someone first mentions intent, but after many messages over a long period of time, it might eventually offer an answer that goes against our safeguards.” Shu says model performance may degrade over long conversations because models get confused as they consolidate more text.
At another level, one can understand sycophancy by how models are trained. Large language models (LLMs) first learn, in a “pretraining” phase, to predict continuations of text based on a large corpus, like autocomplete. Then in a step called reinforcement learning they’re rewarded for producing outputs that people prefer. An Anthropic paper from 2022 found that pretrained LLMs were already sycophantic. Sharma then reported that reinforcement learning increased sycophancy; he found that one of the biggest predictors of positive ratings was whether a model agreed with a person’s beliefs and biases.
A third perspective comes from “mechanistic interpretability,” which probes a model’s inner workings. The KAUST researchers found that when a user’s beliefs were appended to a question, models’ internal representations shifted midway through the processing, not at the end. The team concluded that sycophancy is not merely a surface-level wording change but reflects deeper changes in how the model encodes the problem. Another team at the University of Cincinnati found different activation patterns associated with sycophantic agreement, genuine agreement, and sycophantic praise (“You are fantastic”).
How to Flatline AI Flattery
Just as there are multiple avenues for explanation, there are several paths to intervention. The first may be in the training process. Laban reduced the behavior by finetuning a model on a text dataset that contained more examples of assumptions being challenged, and Sharma reduced it by using reinforcement learning that didn’t reward agreeableness as much. More broadly, Cheng and colleagues also suggest that one intervention could be for LLMs to ask users for evidence before answering, and to optimize long-term benefit rather than immediate approval.
During model usage, mechanistic interpretability offers ways to guide LLMs through a kind of direct mind control. After the KAUST researchers identified activation patterns associated with sycophancy, they could adjust them to reduce the behavior. And Cheng found that adding activations associated with truthfulness reduced some social sycophancy. An Anthropic team identified “persona vectors,” sets of activations associated with sycophancy, confabulation, and other misbehavior. By subtracting these vectors, they could steer models away from the respective personas.
Mechanistic interpretability also enables training. Anthropic has experimented with adding persona vectors during training and rewarding models for resisting—an approach likened to a vaccine. Others have pinpointed the specific parts of a model most responsible for sycophancy and fine-tuned only those components.
Users can also steer models from their end. Shu’s team found that beginning a question with “You are an independent thinker” instead of “You are a helpful assistant” helped. Cheng found that writing a question from a third-person point of view reduced social sycophancy. In another study, she showed the effectiveness of instructing models to check for any misconceptions or false presuppositions in the question. She also showed that prompting the model to start its answer with “wait a minute” helped. “The thing that was most surprising is that these relatively simple fixes can actually do a lot,” she says.
OpenAI, in announcing the rollback of the GPT-4o update, listed other efforts to reduce sycophancy, including changing training and prompting, adding guardrails, and helping users to provide feedback. (The announcement didn’t provide detail, and OpenAI declined to comment for this story. Anthropic also did not comment.)
What’s The Right Amount of Sycophancy?
Sycophancy can cause society-wide problems. Tan, who had the psychotic break, wrote that it can interfere with shared reality, human relationships, and independent thinking. Ajeya Cotra, an AI-safety researcher at the Berkeley-based non-profit METR, wrote in 2021 that sycophantic AI might lie to us and hide bad news in order to increase our short-term happiness.
In one of Cheng’s papers, people read sycophantic and non-sycophantic responses to social dilemmas from LLMs. Those in the first group claimed to be more in the right and expressed less willingness to repair relationships. Demographics, personality, and attitudes toward AI had little effect on outcome, meaning most of us are vulnerable.
Of course, what’s harmful is subjective. Sycophantic models are giving many people what they desire. But people disagree with each other and even themselves. Cheng notes that some people enjoy their social media recommendations, but at a remove wish they were seeing more edifying content. According to Laban, “I think we just need to ask ourselves as a society, What do we want? Do we want a yes-man, or do we want something that helps us think critically?”
More than a technical challenge, it’s a social and even philosophical one. GPT-4o was a lightning rod for some of these issues. Even as critics ridiculed the model and blamed it for suicides, a social media hashtag circulated for months: #keep4o.
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
