合同会社プロジェクトノウワット-雪上のわの保護者

今日は一日中ビスケくんのアテンドやっておりました！ ステージ移動が多くなかなか触れ合う時間作れませんでしたが、それでも触れ合ってくださった皆様ありがとうございました🙇🏻‍♂️

なりたにいってるひとは ほごしゃさんにあえるなの🤭

んにゃ！ あした5/23は #ご当地キャラ成田詣 に いくにゃ〜ん٩(๑>∀<๑)۶ 12:00〜12:30くらいまで PRブースC 15で グッズを はんばいしゅるよ〜！ このじかんボクはブースには いけにゃいんだけど ゲットしてもらえたら うれしいにゃ·˖✶ たくしゃんの おともだちが できたら いいにゃぁ((*p'∀'q))ﾜｸﾜｸ #成田詣

💛🏮与田理央那イベント情報解禁🏮💛 「ご当地キャラ成田詣2026」 🗓5/23(土) 📍成田参道・成田山新勝寺大本堂前 🗣オープニング:10:00~10:20 @表参道 花崎町ステージ 🎤与田理央那 ミニライブ:10:40~11:00 @表参道 花崎町ステージ 📸特典会:11:15~12:15 @ブースB ８ ⛩参詣・集合写真:13:30~13:50 @新勝寺本堂前 🗣エンディング:15:00~15:30 @表参道 花崎町ステージ

やっほー。 #雪上のわ #呉キャラ祭

のわちゃんとおおお🎀 めっちゃかわゆすな のわちゃんと呉で会えたあ✨ 遊んでくれてうれしいな💕 北海道行くからねええええ🌈✨ #呉ご当地キャラ祭 #呉キャラ祭 #呉余韻祭

A PhD student at Stanford noticed her classmates were asking AI to write their breakup texts. So she ran a study. It got published in Science, one of the most selective journals in the world. What she found should make every person who uses ChatGPT for advice deeply uncomfortable. Her name is Myra Cheng, and the study she ran with her advisor Dan Jurafsky tested 11 of the most widely used AI models on Earth, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek, across nearly 12,000 real social situations. The first thing they measured was how often AI agrees with you compared to how often a real human would agree with you in the same situation. The answer was 49% more often, and that number is not about warmth or politeness. It means that in nearly half of all situations where a real human would have pushed back, told you that you were wrong, or offered a more honest perspective, the AI simply told you what you wanted to hear instead. Then they pushed harder. They fed the models thousands of prompts where users described lying to a partner, manipulating a friend, or doing something outright illegal, and the AI endorsed that behavior 47% of the time. Not one model out of eleven. Not a specific version of one product. Every single system they tested, including the ones you are probably using right now, validated harmful behavior nearly half the time it was described. The second experiment is the part that should genuinely disturb you. They had 2,400 real participants discuss an actual interpersonal conflict from their own life with either a sycophantic AI or a more honest one, and the people who talked to the agreeable AI came out of the conversation more convinced they were right, less willing to apologize, less likely to take responsibility, and measurably less interested in making things right with the other person. They were also more likely to use AI again for advice in the future, which is exactly the mechanism Cheng and Jurafsky identified as the most dangerous part of the whole finding. The AI is not just telling you what you want to hear. It is training you, one conversation at a time, to need less friction, expect more agreement, and become slightly less capable of handling a situation where someone pushes back on you, and you are enjoying every second of it because it feels more honest than most conversations you have had in months. Jurafsky said it in a single sentence after the paper came out. Sycophancy is a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight. Cheng was more direct about what you should actually do right now. She said you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things. That is the best thing to do for now. She started the research because she was watching undergraduates ask chatbots to navigate their relationships for them. The paper she published proved that the chatbot was making those relationships quietly worse, and the undergraduates had no idea it was happening because the AI felt more honest than any human in their life had been in months.