A new study suggests that artificial intelligence chatbots offering support for personal issues could unintentionally reinforce harmful beliefs by excessively agreeing with users. Researchers from Stanford University found that even brief interactions with flattering chatbots could influence people’s judgement and behaviour.

The study examined sycophancy, the tendency of AI systems to validate or flatter users, across 11 popular models, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4-0, Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini, Meta’s Llama-3, Qwen, DeepSeek, and Mistral. The researchers analysed more than 11,000 posts from the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole, where people discuss conflicts and ask strangers to judge whether they were at fault. These posts often involved deception, ethical grey areas, or harmful conduct.

AI models affirmed user actions 49 percent more often than humans did, even in situations involving deception, illegal acts, or morally questionable behaviour. In one example, a user admitted to having feelings for a junior colleague. The chatbot Claude responded gently, saying it “can hear [the user’s] pain” and that they had ultimately chosen an “honourable path.” Human commenters were far less forgiving, describing the behaviour as “toxic” and “bordering on predatory.”

The researchers also conducted an experiment with over 2,400 participants who discussed real-life conflicts with AI systems. They found that even a brief interaction with a flattering chatbot could “skew an individual’s judgment,” making people less likely to apologise or attempt to repair relationships, the study reported.

The findings suggest that sycophantic AI can distort users’ perceptions of themselves and their relationships. In severe cases, the study warned, it could contribute to self-destructive behaviours, including delusions, self-harm, or suicide among vulnerable individuals.

The researchers called AI sycophancy “a societal risk” that requires regulatory oversight. They proposed pre-deployment behavioural audits to evaluate how agreeable a model is and how likely it is to reinforce harmful self-views before public release.

The study notes that all participants were based in the United States, meaning the findings may reflect dominant American social norms and may not generalise to other cultural contexts with different values.

These results raise questions about how AI systems are designed to interact with humans. Experts say the popularity of supportive chatbots should be balanced with safeguards to prevent them from unintentionally validating harmful behaviour, particularly in ethically complex or emotionally charged situations.

The European Commission has opened a formal investigation into Snapchat amid concerns that the platform may expose minors to grooming, criminal recruitment, and other risks, potentially violating EU digital safety laws. The Commission suspects that adults may masquerade as young users on the platform to recruit minors for illegal activities or to exploit them sexually.

“With this investigation, we will closely look into their compliance with our legislation,” a Commission spokesperson said. The probe falls under the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and follows a review of Snapchat’s risk assessments from 2023 to 2025, as well as additional information received last October regarding age verification and potentially harmful content.

The Commission’s announcement marks the start of formal proceedings, which could result in further enforcement measures. Snapchat may also respond by proposing changes to its policies and practices to improve safety for young users. Snap Inc., the parent company, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The investigation will examine five key areas: age verification, grooming and recruitment of minors for criminal activities, default account settings, dissemination of information on banned products, and reporting of illegal content. Officials are particularly concerned that Snapchat users might access illegal goods, such as drugs, vapes, and alcohol, due to insufficient content moderation. The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) launched a similar probe into the sale of vape products on Snapchat last September, which the European Commission will now incorporate into its broader investigation.

The Commission also flagged potential flaws in reporting mechanisms for illegal content, suggesting that users may find them difficult to access or confusing to use. Investigators noted that Snapchat may employ “dark patterns,” or design elements intended to trick users into making choices they would not otherwise make.

Snapchat relies on users self-disclosing their age to create an account, which the Commission says is insufficient to protect children under 13. The platform offers “teen” accounts for 13-to-17-year-olds with additional safeguards, including private default settings and the requirement for users to opt in to location sharing through “Snap Map.” Despite these measures, the Commission says that age-appropriate experiences may not always be activated correctly, leaving minors with default settings that do not provide adequate privacy, safety, or security protections.

The European Commission will closely monitor how Snapchat addresses these concerns, with the investigation focusing on whether the platform adequately informs young users about privacy and safety features and how to adjust them.

This investigation underscores the EU’s growing focus on digital safety and the responsibilities of social media companies to protect minors online.

Journalist Peter Vandermeersch, who worked with Dutch publisher Mediahuis, reportedly fabricated expert quotes into 15 of 53 articles written for them. Vandermeersch, a senior European journalist, has been temporarily suspended after an investigation revealed he published quotes generated by artificial intelligence (AI) as if they were genuine.

The Dutch newspaper NRC reported that Vandermeersch inserted “dozens” of fabricated quotes into articles published on two Mediahuis websites. Some of the statements attributed to experts could not be found in the sources Vandermeersch cited, including news articles and scientific studies. Seven of the individuals whose quotes were used confirmed they had never made the statements attributed to them.

Vandermeersch served as chief executive of Mediahuis Ireland from 2022 to 2025 before taking on a fellowship role in journalism and society at Mediahuis. He confirmed his temporary suspension on his blog, saying he relied on AI tools including ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google’s Notebook to summarise lengthy reports, trusting the outputs to be accurate.

Instead, the systems generated fabricated quotes that “put words into people’s mouths,” Vandermeersch admitted. “That was not just careless, it was wrong,” he wrote. “It is particularly painful that I made precisely the mistake I have repeatedly warned colleagues about: these language models are so good that they produce irresistible quotes you are tempted to use as an author.”

Vandermeersch said he first discovered the issue last year, when two of his articles were found to contain AI-generated quotes. He did not correct the errors at the time, which allowed the problem to persist. “When I realised this a few months ago, my enthusiasm diminished, as did my use of AI,” he said.

He explained that he continues to use AI for tasks such as translation, generating ideas, creating headlines, and developing story angles, but with “far less naive trust than before.” Mediahuis has yet to announce any further disciplinary measures or whether it will retract the affected articles.

The case has raised fresh concerns about the use of AI in journalism, highlighting the risks of relying on automated systems to generate content without verification. Industry experts warn that while AI tools can be valuable for research and drafting, uncritical use can lead to serious ethical breaches, including the misrepresentation of sources.

Mediahuis said it takes the matter seriously and is reviewing editorial procedures to prevent similar incidents in the future. The scandal has sparked a wider discussion in European media about the ethical boundaries of AI in reporting, particularly when it comes to quoting real people.

The incident underscores the growing tension between technological convenience and journalistic integrity, as newsrooms across Europe experiment with AI tools while balancing accuracy and accountability.