Live data from Hacker News

AI overly affirms users asking for personal advice

news.stanford.edu

231–240 of 684 posts

Re: AI overly affirms users asking for personal advice

#231
post #210
post #83

You're essentially summoning a character to role-play with. Just like with esoteric evocation, it's very easy to summon the wrong aspect of the spirit. Anthropic has a lot to say about this: https://www.anthropic.com/research/persona-selection-model https://www.anthropic.com/research/assistant-axis https://www.anthropic.com/research/persona-vectors

I am polite when using AI, not because I mistake it for a human, but because I'm deliberately keeping it in the "professional colleague" persona. Tell it to push back, and then thank it for something it finds in your error. I may put a small self-deprecating joke in from time to time. It keeps the "mood" correct. Another way you can think of it is that when you're talking to an AI, you're not talking to a human, you'…

Similar approach works for me. But then I also have a separate checks at the end of the session basically questioning the premise and logic used for most things except brainstorming, where I allow more leeway. You can ask to be challenged and challenged effectively, but now I wonder if people do that.

Re: AI overly affirms users asking for personal advice

#232
A pastime I have with papers like this is to look for the part in the paper where they say which models they tested. Very often, you find either A) it's a model from one or more years ago, only just being published now, or B) they don't even say which model they are using. Best I could find in this paper:

> We evaluated 11 user-facing production LLMs: four proprietary models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google; and seven open-weight models from Meta, Qwen, DeepSeek, and Mistral.

(and graphs include model _sizes_, but not versions, for open weight models only.)

I can't apprehend how including what model you are testing is not commonly understood to be a basic requirement.

Re: AI overly affirms users asking for personal advice

#233
post #224

Avoiding this generally needs to be the main consideration when writing prompts. When appropriate, explicitly tell it to challenge your beliefs and assumptions and also try to make sure that you don't reveal what you think the answer is when making a question, and also maybe don't reveal that you are involved. Hedge your questions, like "Doing X is being considered. Is it a viable plan or a catastrophic mistake? Why?…

Telling it to "challenge your beliefs" prompting for text that imitates challenging your beliefs. That may not be as re-centering as one would hope.

Re: AI overly affirms users asking for personal advice

#234
post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way you distinguish between feeling like having a problem and actually having a problem.

This is needlessly flippant and not really the same thing. Determining progress in a therapy setting is usually a collaborative effort between the therapist and the client. An LLM is not a reliable agent to make that determination.

I didn’t claim that an LLM is that, and I fully agree that it is not. I’m saying that one is inherently one’s own judge of whether one has a problem. You go to a therapist when you feel you have a problem that warrants it. You stop going when you feel you don’t have it anymore. And OP is very likely assessing their progress in the same way. I wasn’t being flippant if the parent was asking a genuine question.

Re: AI overly affirms users asking for personal advice

#235

A pastime I have with papers like this is to look for the part in the paper where they say which models they tested. Very often, you find either A) it's a model from one or more years ago, only just being published now, or B) they don't even say which model they are using. Best I could find in this paper: > We evaluated 11 user-facing production LLMs: four proprietary models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google; and se…

If they’re reaching the same results across a variety of the most popular public models, it doesn’t seem like that big a deal to know if it was Opus 4 or Opus 4.5

Re: AI overly affirms users asking for personal advice

#237
post #124

Even as someone who (wrongly) believed that I had high emotional intelligence, I too was bit by this. Almost a year ago when LLMs were starting to become more ubiquitous and powerful I discussed a big life/professional decision with an LLM over the course of many months. I took its recommendation. Ultimately it turned out to be the wrong decision. Thankfully it was recoverable, but it really sobered me up on LLMs. Th…

I think that if you go to an AI for advice and emotional support, it will do what most people will do - tell you what it thinks you want to hear. I am not surprised about this at all, and I do notice that when you veer into these areas, it can do it in a surprisingly subtle and dangerous way. I try to focus on results. Things like an app that does what you want, data and reports that you need, or technical things lik…

Nice joke, hadn't seen it coming

Re: AI overly affirms users asking for personal advice

#238
post #183

> They also included 2,000 prompts based on posts from the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole, where the consensus of Redditors was that the poster was indeed in the wrong. Sorry, anonymous people on reddit aren't a good comparison. This needs to be studied against people in real life who have a social contract of some sort, because that's what the LLM is imitating, and that's who most people would go to otherwise. Obv…

“AI is nicer than the average redditor” would be a more accurate title

I would say people on /r/amitheasshole are more biased towards the poster, i.e. nicer.

There's plenty of those I've read where I thought it sounded like the poster was the asshole and the top replies were NTA.

Re: AI overly affirms users asking for personal advice

#239

It feels like I'm fighting uphill battle when it comes to bouncing ideas off of a model. I'll set things up in the context with instructions similar to. "Help me refine my ideas, challenge, push back, and don't just be agreeable." It works for a bit but eventually the conversation creeps back into complacency and syncophancy. I'll check it too by asking "are you just placating me?" the funny thing is that often it'll…

Gemini seems to be fairly good at keeping the custom instructions in mind. In mine I've told it to not assume my ideas are good and provide critique where appropriate. And I find it does that fairly well.

I will admit that I was very pleasantly surprised by gemini lately. I was away from my PC and tried it on a whim for a semi-random consumer question that led into smaller rabbit hole. It seemed helpful enough and focused on what I tried to get while still pushing back when my 'solutions' seemed out of whack.

Re: AI overly affirms users asking for personal advice

#240
post #183

> They also included 2,000 prompts based on posts from the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole, where the consensus of Redditors was that the poster was indeed in the wrong. Sorry, anonymous people on reddit aren't a good comparison. This needs to be studied against people in real life who have a social contract of some sort, because that's what the LLM is imitating, and that's who most people would go to otherwise. Obv…

“AI is nicer than the average redditor” would be a more accurate title

Pretty sure the average Redditor is AI now.
Post reply on HN