Character.ai enters the microdrama arena with its own productions 36%

By Ivan Mehta39%

7/9/2026, 1:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Optimism Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 22.2% saturation with 131 hits. Analysis detected 979 faulty-reasoning hits from 590 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43% and a BS Rank of 36% (14,108 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.50% of the article peer group.

Microdramas are such a rage these days that nearly every kind of company in the attention economy space  be they dedicated microdrama apps , social media giants (TikTok and Instagram) or streaming services ( Peacock , Amazon Prime and India’s JioHotstar )  is building a product to tap the opportunity. 
Character.ai, which lets people chat with customized AI avatars, is also tapping this budding market by producing its own microdramas using AI characters. 
But there’s an interesting twist that takes advantage of the company’s core product: Users older than 18 can chat with these shows’ characters, ask them questions, and even roleplay different storylines. 
The startup is launching three microdramas to start with: a romance series dubbed  Last Summer ,” a horror show titled,  The Nighttime Game ,” and a Hunger Games-like survival microdrama called  Eden Fall .” 
Character.ai says these dramas were created using AI production tools, and in the long term, it aims to help users create their own characters and series. 
“Starting with a studio-led model, c.ai Series lets our production team develop the format, refine the workflow, and understand what audiences want from Character-native Microdrama entertainment. 
Over time, the goal is to turn those learnings and workflows into creator tools, enabling users to make their own series from original Characters and share them with a global audience,” a company spokesperson told TechCrunch. 
This is the latest in a slew of recent features from the startup following its shift towards entertainment-focused features last year. 
In April, it teased a tool called Lorebook that users can employ to create world-building information that characters can reference, and launched another feature called Books that lets users insert themselves into select classic literature titles, or role-play as characters from them. 
The company said on Thursday that it is also testing a feature, dubbed c.ai FM, that will let users put together audio series, and another that lets you create fiction, called c.ai Reads. 
The audio series feature is currently available to select users under its experimental c.ai Labs program, which the company says professional writers are using to create serialized audio dramas. 
There’s certainly an audience for this form of entertainment. 
Users spend more than 950 minutes on Character.AI each month in the first half of 2026, according to Sensor Tower . 
AI , ai entertainment , Apps , character.ai , microdramas 
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission . 
This doesn’t affect our editorial independence. 
Ivan covers global consumer tech developments at TechCrunch. 
He is based out of India and has previously worked at publications including Huffington Post and The Next Web. 
You can contact or verify outreach from Ivan by emailing im@ivanmehta.com or via encrypted message at ivan.42 on Signal. 
Last chance to save up to $190 on TechCrunch Founder Summit. 
Join 1,000+ founders and VCs at all stages for real-world scaling insights and connections that move the needle. 
Savings end June 26, 11:59 p.m. 
PT . 
If you use Google, you’re training its AI. 
Here’s how to opt out. 
Reddit is using LLMs to solve a problem LLMs largely created 
Amazon will stop accepting new customers for Mechanical Turk 
5 desk gadgets that can make your workday better 
New Google commercial imagines a Declaration of Independence written with help from AI 
Chevy built an all-American EV truck  why is nobody buying it? 
Mark Zuckerberg tells staff that AI agents haven’t progressed as quickly as he’d hoped 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.5%Ivan Mehta: 2.0%TechCrunch: 3.0%Confirmation Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 1.3%TechCrunch: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Ivan Mehta: 3.3%TechCrunch: 3.5%Availability Heuristic8.8%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.5%TechCrunch: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Ivan Mehta: 2.8%TechCrunch: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias4.4%This article: 3.9%Ivan Mehta: 4.1%TechCrunch: 4.8%Framing Effect3.9%This article: 3.7%Ivan Mehta: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.7%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.6%Ivan Mehta: 5.9%TechCrunch: 4.9%Optimism Bias14.6%This article: 2.4%Ivan Mehta: 1.2%TechCrunch: 1.3%Pessimism Bias2.4%This article: 5.3%Ivan Mehta: 3.1%TechCrunch: 5.0%Negativity Bias5.3%This article: 6.6%Ivan Mehta: 3.5%TechCrunch: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Ivan Mehta: 4.4%TechCrunch: 3.5%Halo Effect8.5%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Ivan Mehta: 0.9%TechCrunch: 2.3%Recency Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.2%Ivan Mehta: 4.5%TechCrunch: 4.4%Appeal to Authority22.2%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.8%TechCrunch: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.4%Ivan Mehta: 6.4%TechCrunch: 6.0%Hasty Generalization15.4%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 11.9%Ivan Mehta: 2.4%TechCrunch: 1.1%Bandwagon11.9%This article: 7.5%Ivan Mehta: 0.7%TechCrunch: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion7.5%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 1.9%Ivan Mehta: 2.5%TechCrunch: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.9%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.9%TechCrunch: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.3%Ivan Mehta: 1.9%TechCrunch: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.3%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.9%Ivan Mehta: 1.7%TechCrunch: 2.0%Unattributed Quote12.9%This article: 1.4%Ivan Mehta: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection1.4%This article: 8.0%Ivan Mehta: 1.4%TechCrunch: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice8.0%This article: 2.2%Ivan Mehta: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.8%Indoctrination2.2%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ivan Mehta: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Ivan Mehta: 7.6%TechCrunch: 4.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.8%

590 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers11%attributed speech528writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageCharacter.ai • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageTechCrunch • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

TechCrunch

100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words58% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+92.4 ptsWriter: 7.6%TechCrunch: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -12.1 ptsWriter: 12.1%TechCrunch: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.9 ptsWriter: 8.9%TechCrunch: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%TechCrunch: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%TechCrunch: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.