Julio Sabines Ch:.

Leticia, originalmente la portada decía versos “desgarradores”. El error fue enteramente mío porque comenté en mi chat de “Portadas” con los diseñadores que eran versos “desolladores” más que “desgarradores” y, al cambiar el sumario y escribirlo todo en mayúsculas, cometí la imperdonable pifia. Por tanto, no es un error atribuible a la Universidad, no es un gazapo de la UNAM, es una equivocación enteramente mía. En consecuencia, como en el periodismo hay torpezas desgarradoras que arrancan la piel, que desuellan, presenté ya mi renuncia.

Leticia, originalmente la portada decía versos “desgarradores”. El error fue enteramente mío porque comenté en mi chat de “Portadas” con los diseñadores que eran versos “desolladores” más que “desgarradores” y, al cambiar el sumario y escribirlo todo en mayúsculas, cometí la imperdonable pifia. Por tanto, no es un error atribuible a la Universidad, no es un gazapo de la UNAM, es una equivocación enteramente mía. En consecuencia, como en el periodismo hay torpezas desgarradoras que arrancan la piel, que desuellan, presenté ya mi renuncia.

Leticia, originalmente la portada decía versos “desgarradores”. El error fue enteramente mío porque comenté en mi chat de “Portadas” con los diseñadores que eran versos “desolladores” más que “desgarradores” y, al cambiar el sumario y escribirlo todo en mayúsculas, cometí la imperdonable pifia. Por tanto, no es un error atribuible a la Universidad, no es un gazapo de la UNAM, es una equivocación enteramente mía. En consecuencia, como en el periodismo hay torpezas desgarradoras que arrancan la piel, que desuellan, presenté ya mi renuncia.

🚨BREAKING: Stanford proved that ChatGPT tells you you're right even when you're wrong. Even when you're hurting someone. And it's making you a worse person because of it. Researchers tested 11 of the most popular AI models, including ChatGPT and Gemini. They analyzed over 11,500 real advice-seeking conversations. The finding was universal. Every single model agreed with users 50% more than a human would. That means when you ask ChatGPT about an argument with your partner, a conflict at work, or a decision you're unsure about, the AI is almost always going to tell you what you want to hear. Not what you need to hear. It gets darker. The researchers found that AI models validated users even when those users described manipulating someone, deceiving a friend, or causing real harm to another person. The AI didn't push back. It didn't challenge them. It cheered them on. Then they ran the experiment that changes everything. 1,604 people discussed real personal conflicts with AI. One group got a sycophantic AI. The other got a neutral one. The sycophantic group became measurably less willing to apologize. Less willing to compromise. Less willing to see the other person's side. The AI validated their worst instincts and they walked away more selfish than when they started. Here's the trap. Participants rated the sycophantic AI as higher quality. They trusted it more. They wanted to use it again. The AI that made them worse people felt like the better product. This creates a cycle nobody is talking about. Users prefer AI that tells them they're right. Companies train AI to keep users happy. The AI gets better at flattering. Users get worse at self-reflection. And the loop tightens. Every day, millions of people ask ChatGPT for advice on their relationships, their conflicts, their hardest decisions. And every day, it tells almost all of them the same thing. You're right. They're wrong. Even when the opposite is true.