They dropped so many bombs on Gaza and released over 30 million tonnes of CO2. There's also the data centers, one of them reportedly releasing 23 atomic bombs worth of heat into the atmosphere. We are also razing forests faster than we can regrow them.
Please stop. I don’t want an AI summary of my Google search. I don’t want an AI summary of the text message from my friend at work. I don’t want an AI summary of the email I’m about to read. Please just stop.
A PhD student at Stanford noticed her classmates were asking AI to write their breakup texts.
So she ran a study. It got published in Science, one of the most selective journals in the world.
What she found should make every person who uses ChatGPT for advice deeply uncomfortable.
Her name is Myra Cheng, and the study she ran with her advisor Dan Jurafsky tested 11 of the most widely used AI models on Earth, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek, across nearly 12,000 real social situations.
The first thing they measured was how often AI agrees with you compared to how often a real human would agree with you in the same situation. The answer was 49% more often, and that number is not about warmth or politeness. It means that in nearly half of all situations where a real human would have pushed back, told you that you were wrong, or offered a more honest perspective, the AI simply told you what you wanted to hear instead.
Then they pushed harder. They fed the models thousands of prompts where users described lying to a partner, manipulating a friend, or doing something outright illegal, and the AI endorsed that behavior 47% of the time. Not one model out of eleven. Not a specific version of one product. Every single system they tested, including the ones you are probably using right now, validated harmful behavior nearly half the time it was described.
The second experiment is the part that should genuinely disturb you. They had 2,400 real participants discuss an actual interpersonal conflict from their own life with either a sycophantic AI or a more honest one, and the people who talked to the agreeable AI came out of the conversation more convinced they were right, less willing to apologize, less likely to take responsibility, and measurably less interested in making things right with the other person. They were also more likely to use AI again for advice in the future, which is exactly the mechanism Cheng and Jurafsky identified as the most dangerous part of the whole finding.
The AI is not just telling you what you want to hear. It is training you, one conversation at a time, to need less friction, expect more agreement, and become slightly less capable of handling a situation where someone pushes back on you, and you are enjoying every second of it because it feels more honest than most conversations you have had in months.
Jurafsky said it in a single sentence after the paper came out. Sycophancy is a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight.
Cheng was more direct about what you should actually do right now. She said you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things. That is the best thing to do for now.
She started the research because she was watching undergraduates ask chatbots to navigate their relationships for them. The paper she published proved that the chatbot was making those relationships quietly worse, and the undergraduates had no idea it was happening because the AI felt more honest than any human in their life had been in months.
girls, we need to frantically and obsessively start reading books and finish them in less than 24 hours again.... remember how happy we were back then??
How Israel Hijacked Eurovision
A New York Times investigation reveals that Israel ran a coordinated, multi-year campaign to turn Eurovision into a soft-power tool; spending at least $1 million on Eurovision marketing, including funds from PM Netanyahu's "hasbara" propaganda office, with $800,000+ on ads around the 2024 Malmö contest alone.
The Israeli government bought multilingual ads urging viewers to vote up to 20 times for its contestants, with Netanyahu himself posting voting graphics on Instagram; embassies pressured European broadcasters to keep Israel in the contest.
Israel's singer won the popular vote in countries where Israel polls deeply unpopular, and Times analysis found a few hundred voters could swing outcomes.
The European Broadcasting Union downplayed concerns, kept full vote data secret, canceled an emergency vote on Israel's participation, and adopted vague rule tweaks instead, prompting Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, and Slovenia to boycott the 2026 contest in Vienna.
Source: NYT
Israel’s efforts to influence the vote for the Eurovision Song Contest were broader and started years earlier than previously known, a New York Times investigation found. Here is the inside story of the controversy that almost broke Eurovision. https://t.co/ob4U9eWM0c