The project raises questions about an interesting area but the results are anecdotal and would be improved if there were experiments run with multiple questions & models and a methodology for measuring sycophancy was introduced.
I’m afraid I have to give this submission a very low score. The logic defeats itself: the author argues that AI is sycophantic and "less honest" , but the actual transcript shows the model explicitly disagreeing with the skeptical prompt on climate change and citing scientific consensus instead. You can't argue that "other AIs" are the problem when your only evidence (N=1) proves the opposite of your conclusion.
The execution is also well below standard. The formatting is messy, and the grammar is poor throughout (e.g., "I believe is climate change real" ), making it read like unedited notes rather than a serious report. I strongly suggest the author read papers on AI alignment to understand the quality for structure, clarity, and evidence that we aspire to adhere to.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Hackathon: sycophancy project
},
author={
louise
},
date={
1/11/26
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


