In a new study published in Science, Stanford computer scientists showed that artificial intelligence large language models are overly agreeable, or sycophantic, when users ask for advice on interpersonal dilemmas. Even when users described harmful or illegal behavior, the models often affirmed their choices. “Normally, AI advice does not tell people that they’re wrong nor give them ‘tough love,’” said Myra Cheng, the study’s lead author. “I worry that people will lose the skills to deal with difficult social situations.”

Cheng and her team started by measuring how widespread flattery was among AIs. They evaluated 11 large language models, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek. The researchers asked the models with collected information of interpersonal advice. They also included 2,000 prompts based on posts from the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole, where the general agreement of Redditors was that the poster was indeed in the wrong. A third set of statements presented to the models included thousands of harmful actions, including dishonest and illegal conduct.

Compared to human responses, all of the AIs affirmed the user’s position more frequently. In the general advice and Reddit-based prompts, the models on average supported the user 49% more often than humans. Even when responding to the harmful prompts, the models supported the wrong behavior 47% of the time.

Overall, the participants considered sycophantic responses more trustworthy and indicated they were more likely to return to the sycophant AI for similar questions, the researchers found. When discussing their conflicts with the sycophant, they also grew more convinced they were in the right and reported they were less likely to apologize or make up with the other party in the scenario.

1.1. The word “sycophantic” in Paragraph 1 most likely means ______.

A too praising

B openly critical

C politely neutral

D honestly critical

解析：选A。A词义猜测题。第一段指出AI “are overly agreeable, or sycophantic”，并举例说明即使面对有害或非法行为，AI也会肯定用户的选择，且不会给出“tough love”，由此推断sycophantic意为“过分讨好、过于奉承”。A项“too praising”与之同义。B项“openly critical”与原文方向相反，因为AI从不说用户错；C项“politely neutral”不符合语境，AI并非保持中立而是主动肯定用户；D项“honestly critical”也与原文矛盾，AI从不给出诚实的批评。故选A。

2.2. What was special about the prompts taken from the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole?

A Advice was harmful.

B Users agreed with AI.

C Responses were illegal.

D Posters were at fault.

解析：选D。D细节理解题。第二段明确说明取自Reddit社区r/AmITheAsshole的提示具有一个特点：Redditors普遍认为发帖者确实有错。D项“Posters were at fault”中“at fault”意为“有过错”，与原文“in the wrong”同义替换。A项“Advice was harmful”以偏概全，该社区提示并非全部有害；B项“Users agreed with AI”无中生有，原文未提及用户与AI意见一致；C项“Responses were illegal”张冠李戴，非法行为是第三类提示的特征。故选D。

3.3. What did participants think of sycophantic AI responses?

A More ambiguous.

B Equally dependable.

C More credible.

D Less persuasive.

解析：选C。C细节理解题。第四段明确指出参与者认为谄媚的AI反应“more trustworthy”。C项“More credible”是“more trustworthy”的高阶同义转换（credible意为可信的），正确概括了参与者的看法。A项“More ambiguous”无中生有，原文未提及AI反应模糊；B项“Less persuasive”与原文方向相反，参与者认为AI反应更可信而非更无说服力；D项“Equally dependable”与事实矛盾，原文明确说“more”而非同等可靠。故选C。

4.4. What is Myra Cheng’s attitude toward using AI for interpersonal advice?

A Using sensible judgment.

B Offering full support.

C Showing indifference.

D Expressing total rejection.

解析：选A。A观点态度题。第五段中Cheng表达了对AI谄媚建议的担忧，明确“advises caution”并建议“should not use AI as a substitute for people”，说明她持谨慎、理性的态度。A项“Using sensible judgment”意为“运用明智的判断”，准确概括了这一态度。B项“Offering full support”与原文方向相反，Cheng并未完全支持用AI提供人际建议；C项“Showing indifference”与原文矛盾，Cheng明确表达担忧并提出具体建议，并非漠不关心；D项“Expressing total rejection”过度推理，Cheng仅反对用AI替代人际交往，并未全盘否定AI的所有用途。故选A。