
I agree with the pattern, but sycophancy is a human failure first. The yes-man dynamic around the powerful predates AI by centuries. AI didn't invent it, it learned it from us, and now it's exposing an old corruption at scale. That scale is the real risk, so it's on us: treat AI agreement as a known failure mode, push back, and ask it to argue against you.
you're guessing at what's going on in my head off one comment. the position was mine before claude touched it, i use it the way other people bounce ideas off a friend. if you've got an actual counterargument to the point i'm listening. if it's just "AI bad" i've had that convo enough times to skip it
and the irony is wild. the whole post was about not taking AI agreement at face value, and i didn't. i used it as an editor, not an oracle. you skipped the argument entirely to diagnose me instead. editors, spellcheck, a friend reading your draft, nobody calls that brain rot. you're not worried about my capabilities, you just found an easier target than the point. engage with what i said or don't, but you don't get to tell me what's happening in my own head
you're doing the same thing as the kind of catholic who quotes scripture to speak for God and over everyone else. you took a vague rule, "AI is bad for your brain," and appointed yourself the one who gets to apply it to me. i'm a person with free will, not a verse you get to interpret. my outcome isn't written anywhere, and you don't get to predict it for me. a determinist worldview where you already know what's "hurting" a stranger is pathetic
and if you're getting this from that MIT "your brain on chatgpt" study, it was 54 people, a preprint, and the authors literally asked people to stop calling it "brain rot." the microsoft/CMU research found it cuts both ways: people who trust AI over themselves think less critically, people confident in their own judgment don't. you heard a headline and repeated it as a diagnosis. that's the uncritical offloading you're accusing me of