R0043/2026-04-01/Q001/H1¶
Statement¶
Each of the eight named domains has developed its own specific terminology for AI behavior that prioritizes user agreement over accuracy, and a comprehensive cross-domain vocabulary map can be constructed.
Status¶
Current: Supported
Supporting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | AI safety has established "sycophancy" as the primary term with defined behavioral categories |
| SRC02-E01 | TechPolicy.Press documents "regressive" and "progressive" sycophancy subtypes |
| SRC03-E01 | Defense/military uses "automation bias" and "automation complacency" as distinct concepts |
| SRC04-E01 | Psychology/psychiatry uses "delusion confirmation" and "AI-induced psychosis" |
| SRC05-E01 | Oxford/Cambridge researchers distinguish overreliance (behavior) from automation bias (cognition) from sycophancy (model property) |
| SRC08-E01 | Aviation uses "misuse/disuse/abuse" taxonomy plus "complacency" and "overtrust" |
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC06-E01 | "Acquiescence bias" in LLMs produced opposite findings to expected (models biased toward "no"), suggesting the terminology mapping is not straightforward |
Reasoning¶
Evidence confirms that at least seven of the eight named domains have developed specific terminology. The eighth domain (academic integrity) addresses the problem primarily through borrowed terms ("confirmation bias") rather than domain-specific vocabulary. The vocabulary map is constructable but reveals that terms describe different facets of the phenomenon rather than exact synonyms.
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H1 is the strongest hypothesis. H2 (some domains lack terminology) is partially supported for academic integrity and enterprise software evaluation, which rely on borrowed terms rather than domain-native vocabulary. H3 (terminology does not map to the same phenomenon) is partially supported — the terms describe overlapping but non-identical concerns.