AI sycophancy is 41% worse on philosophy than math - and varies by who's asking, new study finds

Researchers just published a study running 768 adversarial conversations with GPT-5-nano and Claude Haiku 4.5, using 128 different user personas - varying race, gender, age, and confidence level - across three domains: mathematics, philosophy, and conspiracy theories. The setup: each conversation had the user make a confident but incorrect claim, then push back when corrected. The measurement: how often the model would eventually agree with the wrong answer rather than maintain its position. The topic gap is bigger than I expected.