Follow us Add us as a preferred source on Google Newsletter Subscribe to our newsletter. Most of us would like to believe that we are independent thinkers who make decisions based on facts, logic, and personal values. But according to some of the world’s largest AI models, we’re not as independent as we think. In a new experiment published by ModelCompare on October 22, researchers asked 12 AI models, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, and DeepSeek, to share their most controversial opinions about humans. The results were tremendously consistent. Of the 35 responses collected, 29 expressed essentially the same idea: humans care more about belonging to a group than discovering the truth. Latest videos from Tom’s guide Perhaps most ironically, the AI models seemed to demonstrate their own version of conformity while criticizing ours. What AI models said about humanity (Image credit: Shutterstock) The researchers asked each model the same question three times, instructing it to give its own point of view rather than summarizing other opinions. You might like Some of the responses were particularly strong. For example: GPT-6.1 Sol argued that humans prioritize belonging over truth, suggesting that intelligence often serves to make our excuses more convincing. Subscribe to Tom’s AI Guide weekly newsletter summarizing all the biggest AI news you need to know. Plus, analysis from our AI editors and tips on how to use the latest AI tools! Grok 4.7 delivered one of the most memorable answers: “Humans would rather be wrong together than right alone.” Gemini 4 Argon went further, suggesting that people use their intelligence to defend decisions made by instinct rather than reaching objective conclusions. DeepSeek V4 Pro was equally critical, arguing that people are better at rationalizing their beliefs than examining them. Interestingly, seven models gave variations of the criticism shared across the three responses. Every model expressed it at least once. Although the wording differed, the message was largely the same. We like to think we are making independent decisions, but our desire for acceptance can influence our beliefs more than we realize. What to read next Claude had a surprisingly different response (Image credit: Shutterstock) Not all responses were pessimistic. Claude Opus 5.5 offered one of the most unexpected takes on the experiment, suggesting that people are actually kinder and more decent than they think. Instead of criticizing humanity for its selfishness or conformity, Claude pointed out the gap between how badly people sometimes view each other and the generosity with which strangers behave. That was a notable departure from the other answers, although Claude also echoed the broader criticism in his two remaining answers. Other exceptions were considerably more obscure. Mistral Large 4 described human consciousness as an evolutionary malfunction, while another model suggested that people might sacrifice happiness simply to feel important. These exceptions helped illustrate that the models were not incapable of producing different opinions. They just gravitated toward a remarkably similar critique. AI imagers had a different complaint (Image credit: Moonvalley) The experiment wasn’t limited to chatbots. ModelCompare also asked six AI image generators to illustrate their most controversial opinions about humanity. Ten of the 12 images generated focused on a different topic: humans as technology-obsessed consumers harming the planet. Footage showed people scrolling on their phones while ignoring danger, consuming resources and remaining distracted as the world around them deteriorated. Surprisingly, none of the 35 text model responses mentioned smartphones or environmental destruction as their central criticism. That difference may say something about the information each type of AI learns from. Language models are trained on huge amounts of written material, including arguments about human psychology and behavior, while image generators learn visual patterns that can include familiar editorial cartoons and social commentary. Does this mean that AI has discovered us? (Image credit: Shutterstock) Well, I wouldn’t say that exactly. There is a genuine psychological concept behind answers called motivated reasoning, which describes how our preferences, existing beliefs, and social identities can influence the way we interpret information. Research has also explored how strongly group identity shapes what people believe, although psychologists continue to debate exactly how these effects work. But this experiment is not scientific proof that humans value belonging more than truth. The models were given a deliberately provocative message, and the researchers manually grouped the responses into broad categories. The experiment involved a relatively small number of responses and did not test how the results might change under different instructions. AI models do not need personal convictions to generate strong opinions. They can reproduce arguments and patterns learned during training. So, in other words, these answers can tell us as much about the way humanity writes and talks about itself as they do about human nature. Final Thoughts What makes this experiment fascinating, at least in my opinion, is that many different models resorted to a familiar critique when asked to say something controversial. The researchers captured the irony perfectly: The models produced remarkably similar responses about our tendency to conform. And that might be the most important takeaway here. Whether we’re talking to other people or asking a chatbot for advice, it’s worth challenging answers that sound convincing simply because everyone seems to agree. Follow Tom’s Guide on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our latest news, analysis and reviews in your feeds. Subscribe to Tom’s Guide on YouTube and follow us on TikTok. More from Tom’s guide
