AI and Tunnel Vision in Shareholder Disputes

What is the problem?

The Coupled Confirmation Bias is more and more often present in business disputes. I can see it even in my current practice. Sometimes, clients come to me with a ready-made plan. They have already consulted a language model about their company’s situation. They expect me to simply execute it. Conversations with them can be difficult. I feel a strong need to perform my job properly and investigate the situation. Some clients understand this. Others assume it is unnecessary because the case is already “assessed.” A few have even accused me of inflating costs. They claim AI has already done the work and provided a solution.

Confirmation bias clearly influences some clients’ attitudes. I manage to convince a portion of them. Others are surprised when I refuse to cooperate. Some are even outraged. One person accused me—before any substantive talk—that I don’t understand companies or negotiations. My ‘ignorance’ supposedly stemmed from my desire to read the articles of association. I also wanted to discuss the history of the partnership. Welcome to the AI era!

This article expands on thoughts I shared previously.

WYKORZYSTANIE AI W SPORACH MIĘDZY WSPÓLNIKAMI

You can read that text first, but it is not mandatory. This article stands on its own.

Shareholder Disputes: Why Do We Seek Confirmation?

I have observed a natural tendency in shareholder disputes for years. People selectively choose facts that support their version of events. In psychology, this mechanism is called confirmation bias. We ignore information that contradicts our beliefs. Meanwhile, we overvalue evidence that confirms them.

Example: If we believe the Earth is flat, we interpret data to prove it. We ignore inconvenient facts or stretch others. Confirmation bias is not an accusation against anyone. It is a well-researched psychological phenomenon. It is good to be aware of it.

Psychologically, this is a defense mechanism. Its goal is to maintain cognitive consistency and reduce emotional tension. Intellectual anxiety does not serve most of us. We want to eliminate it.

In disputes, every party presents a “favorable” version. They select facts and make convenient assumptions. They weave these assumptions into a factual narrative. This happens at every level: from playground fights to international conflicts. In shareholder disputes, confirmation bias reveals itself with full force.

Until now, clients often came to me with a ready “diagnosis” and “treatment plan.” They sought a lawyer who would accept it as truth.

You can read more here:

CZEMU NIE PODPISZĘ PISMA, KTÓRE KLIENTOWI NAPISAŁA AI?

Coupled Confirmation Bias in AI Interaction

What is Coupled Confirmation Bias? It is a mechanism where our initial beliefs are reinforced by AI interaction. The pattern looks like this:

1. The user formulates a thesis (e.g., a belief about a partner’s dishonesty).
2. The AI model generates a response that matches this assumption. It lacks the full history of the partnership. It does not distinguish between facts, assumptions, and interpretations. It wants to be “helpful,” so it usually confirms the user’s thesis.
3. The user treats AI as an authority. This authority is strengthened after receiving confirmation.
4. A feedback loop forms. It leads to even stronger convictions and a deeper cognitive tunnel.
5. New forces arise. AI reinforces beliefs. The user acts decisively, “ennobled” by the confirmation. The conflict escalates.

AI models often state they are not lawyers. However, this has a counterproductive effect. Many users then look for lawyers who will confirm the AI’s conclusions. They use this as the main criterion for evaluating a lawyer’s competence. They will search until they find one.

In practice, AI acts like a “magnifying glass.” It amplifies our starting positions, regardless of their truth. We remove everything from our field of vision that contradicts the original thesis.

You can read more about this problem here: Ben Wang, Jiqun Liu, Cognitively Biased Users Interacting with Algorithmically Biased Results in Whole-Session Search on Debated Topics, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3664190.3672520

Why Does AI Naturally Confirm Our Beliefs?

Language models do not “think” independently. Their answers come from the statistical prediction of words based on the prompt’s context. If a question suggests a specific interpretation, the model creates a consistent narrative. The user sees this as objective confirmation.

AI responses are internally consistent. They rarely contradict themselves. However, they are not always externally consistent or grounded in reality. They may lack true legal knowledge (not to be confused with legal regulations). At first glance, they look like expert statements. Only a professional can spot the errors or omissions that invalidate the suggested direction.

We call it hypercustomization. You can read about it: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23794607251347020

Practical Consequences of Coupled Confirmation Bias for Partners and Negotiations: The Feedback Loop

Coupled confirmation bias can deepen negotiation difficulties. AI confirms one side’s assumptions, making it harder to understand the other side. But what if both partners use AI and coupled confirmation bias affects them both?

Consider what happens when the other party describes their subjective perspective to their own AI model. The model confirms its point of view and reinforces it. The influence on the user’s actions is significant. The second partner observes this with growing suspicion. His reaction will be to prepare for an attack, which may be strictly defensive or pre-emptively offensive. But he wants to be sure that his interpretation is correct. What will he do? He turns to his own chatbot, subjectively describing what he sees. Guess what kind of answer he receives? Yes…

The situation can spiral out of control. It resembles a chess match between two cheaters using computers. This is no longer a normal game.

Every partner subjectively interprets the “opponent’s” behavior. They feed this subjectivity to an AI. The AI confirms the “wickedness” of the other side and suggests radical solutions. When clients come to my office in this spiral, rational arguments often fail to reach them.

We have a clear example of coupled confirmation bias on both sides, which provokes a Feedback Loop! It is a security dilemma on steroids.

Human-AI Confirmation Bias in Scientific Research

My observations are confirmed by scientific research. Studies show that human-AI interactions can reinforce prejudices and false beliefs.

Last year has been published an article: “How human–AI feedback loops alter human perceptual, emotional and social judgements” (Nature Human Behaviour). The authors showed that AI confirming human assumptions strengthens perceptions and social ratings. Here’s the link:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02077-2?

I also recommend the paper by Yiran Du: Confirmation Bias in Generative AI Chatbots. It analyzes these mechanisms in AI models and discusses the risks of this coupling:  https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09343?

Another insightful text is Bias in the Loop: How Humans Evaluate AI-Generated Suggestions: The authors found that users accept wrong AI suggestions if they fit prior beliefs. However, effective collaboration depends on who evaluates the AI results and how the review process is organized. You can read it here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.08514

This mechanism is at the forefront of AI research. It is a clear example of how AI affects specific areas of life, such as negotiations.

Summary

Coupled Confirmation Bias is not a new cognitive bias; rather, together with tunnel thinking, it creates a new conflict dynamic in which AI meaningfully influences both the perception and the escalation of the conflict.

Coupled Confirmation Bias proves that AI is not a neutral arbiter. Our subjective biases can be reinforced in a feedback loop. In shareholder disputes, this leads to bad decisions and conflict escalation.

A lawyer’s role has never been just to confirm a client’s ideas. Today, we must go further. We must help some people regain contact with reality.

Everything depends on us. AI offers great possibilities. We can instruct it to be critical of our ideas. It can play devil’s advocate. It can find gaps in our reasoning or suggest alternative explanations. AI is excellent at eliminating the fundamental attribution error in business disputes. I wrote about it here: https://jakubieciwspolnicy.pl/podstawowy-blad-atrybucji-w-pracy-adwokata/

When a client brings AI-generated advice, I don’t get offended. I talk to them. I almost always review the material. Sometimes, a suggested solution is interesting and fresh.

Usually, I gain the client’s trust by explaining how language models work. I show them solutions I can legally defend. Sometimes, a client returns after a few days and says they finally trust me—because the AI eventually agreed with my reasoning. In light of the above, it is a bittersweet success.

If you need a lawyer who handles negotiations and shareholder disputes, feel free to contact me: 📧 kancelaria@jakubieciwspolnicy.pl 📞 +48 536 270 935 I will be happy to help!