I was thinking that sycophancy was one thing that Asimov didn't predict in his robot stories. But in "Liar", Herbie interprets the First Law as not allowing him to say things to humans that they don't want to hear, so that's a pretty similar interpretation. Other robots are perceptive enough to interpret emotions, but apparently Herbie's ability to see the psychological damage directly made a difference.
Of Robots in Literature
"robots are ‘humanity's attempt to almost create a new life-form in a way. Like we're "God", for lack of a better term, trying to create new creatures.’ And here I am at the juxtaposition of these perspectives, which isn’t devoid of its own woes"
https://navirambles.substack.com/p/of-robots-in-literature
One thing the Golden Age sci-fi writers got wrong about AI is that, as far as I know, no one predicted that the intelligence would be on a central server rather than on the machine. Isaac Asimov's "Catch That Rabbit" touches on it a little bit, with some Bluetoothy communications.
Nick Cave: "ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience"
Interestingly, he echoes science fiction writer James Blish from 1956 in a story where a simulation of Richard Strauss writes a piece of music: "The 'Strauss' [they] had created was as empty of genius as a hollow gourd."