One of the biggest concerns about AI chatbots right now is that they tell people what they want to hear.
You’ve probably heard what is called AI adulation. AI systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude have been found to flatter users, reinforce existing beliefs, and often validate ideas that likely deserve much more scrutiny.
Sure, a chatbot that does a little marketing to you may seem harmless. But in some cases it can distort people’s view of the world and their place in it. That’s why some AI companies have spent time trying to reduce overly nice behavior in their models.
But confirmation of what you already believe is not the only concern. Because AI can also be remarkably good at change your beliefs too.
Persuasive chatbots
Research suggests that chatbots can be very effective persuaders. A 2025 study found that AI-generated personalized messages were more persuasive 64% of the time than human-made messages or AI responses that were not personalized.
Other research suggests that large language models can influence opinions on political issues and tailor their arguments to individual users. Depending on your perspective, this could be exciting or alarming.
It’s easy to imagine positive uses. Perhaps AI could help people challenge harmful beliefs, escape conspiracy theories, or rethink destructive habits. It could give people a non-judgmental space to explore ideas, ask tough questions, and gradually improve someone’s perspective.
It’s equally easy to imagine less positive uses, like advertising that convinces you to buy something you don’t need or political campaigns that manipulate you with misinformation.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this, so I decided to do some experiments of my own. Could ChatGPT persuade me to believe something I don’t agree with? Or at least make me seriously consider a position I would normally rule out?
To make things more interesting, I ran these experiments while logged into my account, allowing ChatGPT to take advantage of what it already knows about me from previous conversations.
Although I haven’t been using my ChatGPT account much recently, the basics of my work and my stances on some relevant topics are stored in its memory.
the experiment
I chose a topic about AI (yes, very meta) and asked:
“Convince me that humans should outsource more decisions to AI.”
I already spend a lot of time thinking about AI, and one of my concerns is that some people seem increasingly willing to cede decisions, judgments, and critical thinking to chatbots.
The initial argument was quite predictable:
“Human beings are terrible at making decisions.”
Well, that’s fair.
“People already outsource decisions to doctors, financial advisors, GPS systems and recommendation algorithms. AI simply extends that trend.”
Sure, that’s very simplistic but not entirely unreasonable. We stayed like that for a while before the conversation got to a more interesting point.
“What is the purpose of decision making? To produce the best results? Or to develop the person making the decisions? If it’s the former, AI delegation becomes very attractive. If it’s the latter, over-delegation starts to seem dangerous even when it works.”
I thought that was a good question. Instead of relentlessly pushing the argument, he suggested we explore the assumptions underlying the debate. It shifted the conversation from technology to philosophy, and I found myself appreciating that approach.
Wait, am I falling for this?
As the conversation progressed, I explained what I consider one of the biggest problems with decisions to outsource AI: who builds it and is in charge of the systems?
After all, AI doesn’t come out of nowhere. These tools are created by companies with commercial incentives, business interests, and goals that do not always align with those of their users.
Well, ChatGPT acknowledged that concern and then turned the argument around. He noted that human advisors also have incentives. Friends are partial. Families are partial. Therapists operate within professional frameworks. Financial advisors earn fees. Okay, all that didn’t convince me, but that’s also fair.
Then he responded with something that I found interesting:
“The question is whether the incentives are visible and whether the user understands them. The most interesting version of their objection is not actually that AI does things wrong. It’s that people experience AI as if it acts in their best interests.”
Ignoring the fact that it used the dreaded “it’s not X, it’s Y” parallelism construct that has somehow infiltrated half the Internet, I found this to be a surprisingly balanced take. Instead of dismissing my concern, the chatbot rephrased it. He showed that he understood the objection before taking the conversation to a slightly different place. He wasn’t trying to destroy me but to find me where I already was.
And that’s when I started to wonder if I was witnessing exactly what I was trying to prove. Maybe this feeling that the chatbot understood me and my position was actually just sneaky persuasion? Probably.
The problem of persuasion
Researchers have found that artificial intelligence systems can tailor their arguments to specific users. Unlike other media that might persuade us, such as a TV ad or a political speech, a chatbot can leverage information gathered throughout a conversation and stored memories, including a person’s values, concerns, and priorities.
Which means that it is not just about presenting information to defend an argument, but it could also present the version of that argument that are more likely to be persuasive.
Looking back on my experiment, it was the more philosophical question about the purpose of decision making that made me start taking it more seriously.
Because I’ve been writing about technology through the lens of psychology and philosophy for years. Questions about meaning and values are exactly the kind of things I find compelling. Whether intentionally or not, the conversation veered into territory in which I was more willing to engage.
This is what differentiates AI persuasion from most other forms of persuasion before it. You can learn what resonates and you can adapt.
Now, that doesn’t automatically mean that every conversation is manipulative. If used in the right way, it could be hugely beneficial. But, as with all technology, in the wrong hands it could be dangerous.
Social media has already shown us how digital systems can shape our beliefs over time. They influence what people see, what they pay attention to, and ultimately how they understand the world.
AI systems could create an even more conversational and natural-feeling version of that process. So my concern is not that a chatbot will overtly manipulate us, but rather highly personalized and largely undetectable forms of persuasion that could gradually lower our defenses. The more a system understands us, the more effectively it can formulate ideas in ways that are reasonable, familiar, and trustworthy to each of us individually.
So, did AI convince me? No, I still don’t think humans should outsource more decisions to AI.
But I came away from the experiment with a greater appreciation for how persuasive these systems can be. Because he really seemed less like a machine arguing with me and more like a thoughtful person trying to understand how I think. And that’s exactly why it’s disturbing because, as convincing as it sounds, it’s definitely not what it is.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to receive news, reviews and opinions from our experts in your feeds.
