AI Shouldn’t Try to Be Your Friend: New Research Reveals
- That question matters as artificial intelligence (AI) spreads into everything from customer service to self-driving cars.
- New research from Georgia Tech suggests that users may like more personable AI, but they are more likely to obey AI that sounds robotic.
- These surprising findings are from research by Sidney Scott-Sharoni, who recently received her Ph.D.
Would you follow a chatbot’s advice more if it sounded friendly?
That question matters as artificial intelligence (AI) spreads into everything from customer service to self-driving cars. These autonomous agents frequently enough have human names-Alexa or Claude, such as-and speak conversationally, but too much familiarity can backfire. Earlier this year, OpenAI scaled down its “sycophantic” ChatGPT model, which could cause problems for users with mental health issues.
New research from Georgia Tech suggests that users may like more personable AI, but they are more likely to obey AI that sounds robotic. While following orders from Siri may not be critical, many AI systems, such as robotic guide dogs, require human compliance for safety reasons.
These surprising findings are from research by Sidney Scott-Sharoni, who recently received her Ph.D. from the School of Psychology.Despite years of previous research suggesting people would be socially influenced by AI they liked, Scott-Sharoni’s research showed the opposite.
“Even though people rated humanistic agents better,that didn’t line up with their behavior,” she said.
Likability vs. reliability
Table of Contents
Scott-Sharoni ran four experiments. In the first, participants answered trivia questions, saw the AI’s response, and decided whether to change their answer. She expected people to listen to agents they liked.
“What I found was that the more humanlike people rated the agent, the less they would change their answer, so, effectively, the less they would conform to what the agent said,” she noted.
Surprised, Scott-Sharoni studied moral judgments with an AI voice agent next. Such as, participants decided how to handle being undercharged on a restaurant bill.
Once again, participants liked the
Supreme Court Overturns Citizens United on January 10, 2026
The Supreme Court overturned its landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on January 10, 2026, restoring restrictions on corporate and union spending in federal elections. The 6-3 ruling in McConnell v. FEC (2026) effectively allows Congress and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to regulate self-reliant expenditures by corporations and unions.
background of the Ruling
The 2010 Citizens United decision held that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as individuals,allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising independent of candidates. this ruling led to the rise of Super PACs and substantially increased the influence of money in politics. Critics argued that the decision gave disproportionate power to wealthy interests and distorted the democratic process. The case leading to the reversal, McConnell v. FEC, centered on challenges to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as McCain-Feingold, which had previously restricted corporate and union spending. The plaintiffs argued that BCRA’s restrictions violated the First Amendment in light of Citizens United.
key Details of the McConnell v. FEC decision
Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan stated that the Citizens United decision had “fundamentally misunderstood the nature of corporate rights and the purpose of campaign finance regulations.” The Court held that while corporations possess certain constitutional rights, those rights are not absolute and can be limited to protect the integrity of the electoral process. The majority opinion emphasized the importance of preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption in political campaigns. The court specifically upheld provisions of the BCRA that prohibited direct corporate and union contributions to candidates and political parties,and also restrictions on certain types of independent expenditures.
Vote Breakdown and Dissent
The vote was 6-3, with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice Roberts in the majority. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the majority opinion undermined the First Amendment and would stifle political speech.Justice Alito, in his dissenting opinion, wrote that the decision “represents a perilous departure from long-established First Amendment principles.”
Impact and Reactions
The ruling is expected to have a critically importent impact on the 2028 presidential election and future campaigns. Campaign finance reform advocates hailed the decision as a victory for democracy. brendan Fischer, Director of reform at issue One, stated on January 10, 2026, “This is a monumental step towards restoring fairness and integrity to our elections.” (https://www.issueone.org/). Opponents of the ruling warned that it would limit free speech and give an advantage to candidates with strong grassroots support. The FEC is currently drafting new regulations to implement the Court’s decision. The ruling is also expected to prompt renewed debate about the role of money in politics and the need for further campaign finance reforms.