DUKE: The Cheatbot Generation Is Coming For America ⁠74%

By Amber Duke⁠0%

7/10/2026, 10:00:35 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 39.4% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 434 faulty-reasoning hits from 127 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (5,816 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.40% of the article peer group.

DUKE: The Cheatbot Generation Is Coming For America 
A professor from Brown University may have created the perfect chart of our civilizational decline. 
Brown economics professor Roberto Serrano gave his students a take-home exam this spring and was shocked by the unusually high scores. 
The class had scored an average of 96 percent on the test, compared to the normal 65 to 80 percent midterm average for the class. 
Had his students suddenly mastered the material or was something else going on? 
After reviewing the students’ answers, he wondered if they may have been using AI to cheat on the exam. 
So he decided to test his theory. 
To continue reading this newsletter, please become a paid Substack subscriber.  
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 31.5%Amber Duke: 12.0%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias31.5%This article: 19.7%Amber Duke: 4.1%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias19.7%This article: 11.8%Amber Duke: 4.6%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic11.8%This article: 19.7%Amber Duke: 7.4%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic19.7%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Amber Duke: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias5.5%This article: 22.8%Amber Duke: 16.4%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect22.8%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 39.4%Amber Duke: 14.4%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias39.4%This article: 24.4%Amber Duke: 17.1%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias24.4%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 3.0%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 10.4%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 3.4%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 3.0%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 3.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 3.4%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 10.0%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 16.5%Amber Duke: 6.8%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma16.5%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 24.4%Amber Duke: 18.3%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization24.4%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 1.7%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 18.1%Amber Duke: 9.6%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion18.1%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 2.1%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 20.5%Amber Duke: 9.4%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof20.5%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.8%Amber Duke: 5.8%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal11.8%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.7%Amber Duke: 4.2%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.7%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.5%Amber Duke: 1.7%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote16.5%This article: 6.3%Amber Duke: 3.5%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection6.3%This article: 18.1%Amber Duke: 25.7%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice18.1%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 4.1%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Duke: 5.2%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%Amber Duke: 8.2%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…15.0%

127 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers50%attributed speech64writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
DUKE • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDUKE • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageRoberto Serrano • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageRoberto Serrano • 19 words • 0.0% coverageRoberto Serrano • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

DUKE

100%flagged-word coverage
16 attributed words25% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Quote-first Misdirection+50.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%DUKE: 50.0%50.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +32.8 ptsWriter: 17.2%DUKE: 50.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice+26.6 ptsWriter: 23.4%DUKE: 50.0%50.0%

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.