arXiv paper shows agent groups copy each other into bad answers

A new paper replicates the Music Lab experiment, a well-known study where humans copied each other's song ratings until popular songs became dominant regardless of quality. The researchers ran the same design with groups of large language model agents. The agents showed the same herding behavior: early ratings by a few agents shaped the final group consensus, even when those ratings were wrong. The failure mode is not about a single agent giving a bad answer. A group of agents can reach strong agreement on a wrong answer because each agent reads what the others wrote and shifts toward it. The more agents share each other's outputs before responding, the faster the group drifts. This makes groups of agents harder to trust, not easier, because high confidence can emerge from copying rather than reasoning. For product teams, this changes how you read agreement between agents. Consensus is evidence of coordination, not evidence of correctness. Any system where agents see each other's outputs before producing their own is vulnerable. Design teams need ways for a human to see where agreement came from, and whether it was earned or copied.