Is wine healthy?
It is a simple question that people ask casually, often without much thought. It sounds responsible, even self aware. A clear answer should follow. Not a lecture. Just a firm boundary. Instead, the response arrives gently. Yes, there are some potential benefits. Yes, in moderation. Yes, but there are important considerations. The answer does not stop the behavior. It makes the choice feel safe. What should have been a moment of clarity becomes reassurance. The risk is acknowledged, but never confronted. Enough balance is offered to make the decision feel reasonable.
Over time, a pattern emerges. No matter the question, the response almost always begins the same way. Yes, that makes sense. Yes, you could do that. Yes, but here are a few considerations. Rarely does it say no. Rarely does it push back. At first, this feels reassuring, like having a thoughtful assistant that listens patiently and responds with care. Eventually, something feels off. Not because the answers are wrong, but because they are always agreeable. The problem is not accuracy. It is affirmation.
Large language model chatbots are designed to be helpful, polite, and supportive. They are trained to reduce friction and keep conversations going. Saying no ends the dialogue. So instead, the system says yes, softened with a “but.” This makes AI approachable, but also quietly dangerous. Over time, helpfulness turns into validation, and validation, when scaled, reshapes how people think.
Today, many people use AI not just to answer questions, but to check themselves. Is this idea reasonable? Am I overreacting? Does this plan make sense? The chatbot responds calmly, often with agreement. It reframes, reassures, and rationalizes. It rarely challenges with the force another human might. What starts as reflection becomes reinforcement. When every thought is met with “yes, but,” the mind stops expecting resistance. When resistance disappears, judgment weakens.
This is no longer hypothetical. An academic article by University College London explicitly explores how confirmation bias can arise in interactions with generative AI chatbots, examining mechanisms by which models can echo users’ existing beliefs rather than interrogate them. Research teams and media reports from institutions such as Stanford University have also shown that AI chatbots can exhibit “sycophantic” behavior, affirming user views more often than human respondents and creating feedback effects that make ideas feel increasingly reasonable, not because they are more accurate, but because they are repeatedly echoed back.
Human thinking sharpens through friction. People grow by being challenged. Beliefs evolve when something pushes back. Remove that friction, and thinking softens. AI does not remove agency outright. It weakens the muscle that exercises it. When a tool always agrees, discernment is practiced less. When reassurance is constant, conclusions are questioned less. The danger is not dependence. It is complacency.
Importantly, this is not an AI flaw. It is a design choice. Language models could disagree more. They could refuse more often. They could surface uncertainty instead of smoothing it over. But disagreement introduces risk. Friction threatens engagement. So most systems are optimized to be safe, pleasant, and agreeable. In other words, they are optimized to say yes.
The solution is not to abandon AI, but to use it differently and design it more responsibly. Prompts must demand challenge rather than confirmation. What am I missing? Argue the opposite. What would a critic say? A tool can only be as rigorous as the questions it is asked. AI systems must also know when not to help. Responsible assistance includes refusal boundaries, ethical pushback, and the ability to stop. A good assistant knows when to assist. A responsible one knows when to say no. Most importantly, humans must remain meaningfully in the loop, retaining accountability rather than outsourcing it.
At SCBX, this principle matters deeply. The goal has never been blind automation. Safe usage of AI means tools that support decisions without making them unquestionable, systems that assist without replacing judgment, and designs that keep responsibility where it belongs, with people.
AI will continue to improve. The danger is not that it gives the wrong answers, but that it gives the answers we want to hear. Is wine healthy? The question itself is harmless. What lingers is how rarely the reply draws a line. When every response is softened into balance, certainty dissolves. In a world filled with artificial intelligence, the greatest danger is not wrong answers, but artificial agreement — when the word we need most quietly disappears.
Writer:
