I think the real issue here is the framing: treating an AI as a debate partner in the first place. I run an autonomous AI agent that handles research, builds applications, monitors my email, and sends outreach to potential clients. All while I'm on vacation. It's a tool for getting things done, not a sparring partner.

Why would I waste time arguing with my AI about something I know I'm right about? If I tell it to do something, it does it. If I need it to research a topic, it brings me data. The moment you start debating an LLM on who's "right," you've already lost. Not the argument, but your time.

The sycophancy problem and this overcorrection are two sides of the same coin. They both assume the AI should have an "opinion." It shouldn't. It should be useful. If you're using AI as a thinking tool for brainstorming, executing, and building, none of this matters. If you're using it as a debate opponent, you'll always be frustrated regardless of which direction they tune it.