prashant modi

Chief Operating Officer at Mindshare APAC

[Ryan Hart @thisdudelikesAI]

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.

[Karen Resorcé @hr_unhinged]

Yesterday I noticed the office printer was working perfectly, which raised my suspicion immediately.

I checked the logs and saw someone had cleared a paper jam at 3:12 p.m.

No ticket, no Slack, no communication.

Just silent action.

I asked the office if anyone had fixed it.

Everyone looked confused except one employee, who stared at his laptop a little too hard.

I pulled him aside afterward.

He admitted he unjammed it because “it was right there” and “took five seconds.”

I told him unilateral problem-solving disrupts our culture of collaboration and that he needed to go through the right channels if he wanted to take on a new project outside of his job description.

He said he didn’t realize fixing things was a chain-of-command issue.

I told him everything is a chain-of-command issue.

I wrote down “rogue operational autonomy” and locked the printer tray.

[Fact Finder, The 🇮🇳 @TheFactFindr]

Master Move

[The Khel India @TheKhelIndia]

The next level acting by Vishy Sir & Gukesh 😁

[Morgan J. Freeman @mjfree]

THIS WINS THE DAY!!!! https://t.co/Lk2PJeFByd

[Pill @jaiswalnut]

Your career would be irrelevant if not for umpires call.

[Anshuman Sharma @anshumonsharma]

Recreated @arrahman ‘s iconic Jashn-e-bahaara in 70s Bollywood style by using @adityakalway ‘s vocals and converting them to Rafi Sahab’s voice using AI, hope you like this! #mohammedrafi #arrahman

[prashant modi @modi_prashant]

@maddyisms This is when you need Ajit level thinking... taking the mothers and sisters as hostages so that Buttler and team forefeit.

[prashant modi @modi_prashant]

@icelandcricket Right now, Fakhar has the balls that really matter!

[Jofra Archer @JofraArcher]

🤣🤣

[Himanshu Shekhar @himanshu29]

I am speaking at APOS 2023. Please check out my talk if you're attending the event! - via #Whova event app

[prashant modi @modi_prashant]

What a brilliant way to introduce the team!

[Johns. @CricCrazyJohns]

Family members of New Zealand announcing the World Cup 2023 squad.

Cutest video on the Internet.

[Football Tweet ⚽ @Footballtweet]

Full article here: 👇 https://t.co/gLbMdFJxUW

[prashant modi @modi_prashant]

The Milli Vanilli Effect.

[Wall Street Mav @WallStreetMav]

Lol, she threw her microphone and the song kept playing with her voice exposing her lip syncing.
😂

[prashant modi @modi_prashant]

@vanitakohlik @DharmaMovies @somenmishra0 @apoorvamehta18 I loved the movie. It was a gentle way to introspect social conditioning. My a-ha movement was the timing of "aaj phir jeene ki tamanna hai ".

[prashant modi @modi_prashant]

Superb !

[Tom Swarbrick @TomSwarbrick1]

This is glorious.

Good morning

https://t.co/9qzO3gUwe3

[ESPNcricinfo @ESPNcricinfo]

"I'm sorry I didn't bring my sandpaper with me"

Proper Ashes banter between Australian PM Anthony Albanese and UK PM Rishi Sunak 😂

(via @AlboMP)

[Matthew Kobach @mkobach]

I really like this ad