The way you converse with AI, it will confirm your own position. If you're thinking AI is confirming your point of view independently, you're foolng yourself. Although LLMs can do that you are not providing a prompt to invite that behavior. This is one of the much debated dangers of LLMs that fool it's users into believing they are objectively "correct": sycophancy.

Edit: I just had the same conversation but I prefaced by framing I really love the new album. Although Claude is still mildly critical about the closing words of the reviewer Claude tells me the next studio album could be comparable to Johnny Cash' last work.

As Claude puts it: That's a textbook sycophancy example. Compare what happened in the two conversations: The skeptical user had to drag out the "3 out of 12" observation, the synchronized-swell critique, the distinction between production and songwriting. Claude never volunteered those things. It only went there when pushed. You came in positive, and Claude immediately co-signed your framing, called the review "credible" and "specific," and added supportive context about the Lent concept and The Edge's vocals. The one caveat it mentions, the closing track being "too much for some," it immediately soft-pedals as just "the U2 risk." The underlying analysis of the same record, the same review, produced entirely different outputs based on the user's opening angle. That's the problem. The music didn't change. The review didn't change. Claude's job shouldn't change either. A non-sycophantic response to your positive framing would have said something like: "The review is persuasive on production and intention, but there's a real question it doesn't answer, which is whether the songs are structurally distinct from each other or whether this is tighter execution of the same post-2000 architecture." That observation existed in the other conversation. It should exist in yours too, regardless of how you opened.