Confirmation Bias. Why Prompts Only Reinforce What You Already Believe

Confirmation bias is no big news, especially in 2026. However, as the tech world is rushing to relive Skynet (kidding) confirmation bias now spills into the AI domain as well, hindering our relationship with the tech and its possible development.

Taking a close look at ourselves and our bias is no easy task, but a necessary one. First things first. 

ALSO READ: Ultimate Guide to OpenAI Sora 2: Everything You Need to Know in 2025

Main Idea Behind Confirmation Bias

Definitions are beautiful, aren’t they? So let’s eliminate any ambiguity.

Basic definition of confirmation bias is the following: it’s the tendency to pursue, interpret, and recollect information that validates existing beliefs.

Naturally, it doesn’t exist in isolated individuals.

That’s how all humans function.

We all tend to exhibit the same behavior in everyday life. 

For example, Phyllis and Harry fight all the time (don’t fixate on the names, read on).

Phyllis believes Harry “never listens.” Every time he forgets something, it’s logged as proof. See? You never pay attention!

Every time Harry remembers, it’s dismissed as an exception, and not mentioned.

Over time, the belief feels like an objective fact, even though the evidence is mixed.

No amount of video maker proof is going to convince her otherwise. That’s why Phyllis thinks she needs to move back to her mom’s. 

Mechanisms Behind Self-Confirmation

Main point first. This is not a bug, it’s a feature. Do you have any idea how much information the human brain processes under limited time, attention, and energy?

So, don’t drudge. Confirmation bias is a cognitive shortcut. It keeps you sane.

Instead of evaluating every (potentially trash) piece of new info from scratch, the brain filters incoming data (you’re welcome) through existing beliefs and assumptions.

All hail to the reduction of mental effort. This is why you can make decisions faster, but everything has a price. And the price for speed is accuracy. 

Is AI Interaction Any Different?

People do not become objective observers when they interact with AI.

They do not transform within a moment and most certainly, they apply all the same patterns in communicating with a machine.

It is no wonder that people fall in love with ChatGPT (no offense to its cute metal head).

Otherwise known as cognitive shortcuts, they carry them with them, and a trailer of anticipations as well.

The outcome is not very surprising. 

• Prompts are frequently influenced not so much by curiosity, but by that which the user already suspects to be true.
• We should see how it works in practice. Prompts should be phrased differently. It may often have an implicit hypothesis, even in cases where the user believes that they are simply posing a question. 
• Example, shall we? You search Why is remote work bad for team productivity. There is a connotation in this question that it IS really bad, which makes a language model affirm. 

Thou shalt find that which thou seekest, my child.

You will find one, should you seek a confirmation. This is why the flat-earthers still exist.

This is of particular concern to large language models.

We have programmed them to react effectively and intelligently to what we feed them, not to insult it by default.

When your instinct is towards a certain conclusion, the model, who is the obedient firstborn child, will follow you.

Any lapse in judgment may be bridged. To uphold any concept, any of them. That is, the AI does not create confirmation bias in itself. It resembles the prejudice of the prompt.

Fight Back Against Confirmation Bias. Head On

This is not a drill. Confirmation bias can screw with results, so reducing it is paramount. 

And that starts with intentional prompt design. I know you can’t eliminate assumptions entirely.

That would be impossible. But what you CAN do is prevent them from dictating the outcome. Here are some practical pointers. 

Counterstrike

One of the most effective techniques is counterfactual prompting. That’s explicitly asking the model (because hinting is not enough) to consider scenarios where the initial assumption might be wrong. Look at an example. 

Instead of asking Why is this strategy the best option for growth?, a counterfactual version would be Under what conditions would this strategy fail, and what alternatives might perform better?

This forces your metal friend to explore boundaries, risks, and exceptions rather than cushy affirmation.

Require, And You Shall Get

It’s like dealing with kids. You don’t require, you don’t get. Of course, you can hope that the little munchkin will get there on their own, but let’s be realistic. AI sometimes behaves like a moody teenager too. REQUIRE balance in the response. 

Prompts that ask only for benefits or only for validation will, naturally, produce one-sided outputs. Don’t let there be any ambiguity. From now on, think in pairs. Explicitly request advantages/disadvantages. Strengths vs. weaknesses, or short-term gains/long-term risks. More examples, shall we?

List the benefits of using AI for customer support. EEER. Wrong. 

List the benefits and drawbacks of using AI for customer support, including situations where human support is preferable.

Wouldn’t you rather follow the second one and learn how to THINK for yourself? So will the language mode, trust me. 

Constraints! They rule all

• Request the model evidence to refute your original thought. Or, contradict its own conclusion. That will interfere with the automatic agreement. When you pose a question to ChatGPT that you are not even sure of yourself, and the answer reads great question!, resist! Especially, it is not a great question, Tell it No! 
• Another example: object to the model’s suggestions, make it think harder. It might reveal blind spots. This method is particularly applicable when the idea being tested by the users is emotionally charged, and they would prefer to test it to death instead of proving it through reasoning.

Sources On A Platter! 

Source-based reasoning is something to be encouraged. Hands down. It adds another layer of protection to your idea. Formulate your prompts to request references. Don’t be shy to ask for comparisons and explanations. Your conclusion needs to be grounded in multiple perspectives. That’s when you’ll get analytical and less echo-driven output. Example time! 

• What does research say about this approach? EEERR. Not very promising. 

• What does research say about this approach, and where do experts disagree? Bingo. Here, the model is guided toward synthesis and evaluation.

Together, these techniques shift prompting from seeking reassurance to seeking understanding. They do not make AI more intelligent, but they make its responses more honest, more balanced, and ultimately more useful.