Jacobin60%

AI Is Contributing to the Gigification of Work 73%

By Katy Habr92%

7/10/2026, 12:00:44 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 37.8% saturation with 123 hits. Analysis detected 1,055 faulty-reasoning hits from 325 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.8% and a BS Rank of 73% (5,911 of 21,164 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.10% of the article peer group.

“AI Code = Dumpster Fire?” 
asks an advertisement wrapped around a set of pillars in New York’s Penn Station. 
“We can help,” it answers. 
The ad is for CodeRabbit, a company whose software identifies and fixes bugs in code written by artificial-intelligence software. 
Besides the obvious irony of such a product  if AI can replace software engineers, why does AI-generated code require another AI to clean up its mistakes?  the ad conceals a more important reality: much of the work created to fix AI slop is done not by AI but by a new class of gig workers. 
As Devvin, a tech consultancy owner, told me in a recent interview, the boom in AI products available to the public meant that start-up founders without a computer science background could now “vibe code,” using AI chatbots to create unpolished but functional app prototypes. 
Yet when it came to scaling the app to meet the needs of customers and investors, they needed help, usually quickly and cheaply. 
“When they have a problem,” Devvin explains of new founders, “they’re not going to go to Google and search for a legitimate software company in my area; they’re gonna go to Upwork [an online platform that connects freelance engineers with customers for one-off gigs] and search for software developers.” 
Contracting and freelance work in the computing industry are not new. 
Subcontracting in the tech industry led to the unionization of contingent tech workers at Microsoft in the late 1990s. 
Freelancers (or gig workers) on platforms like Upwork and Fiverr live precarious lives, waiting for gigs that they don’t know will come. 
Whole subreddits are dedicated to Upwork contractors recounting months without work and their struggle with the lack of stable income that comes with contracting. 
AI is not eliminating jobs because it performs so well. 
Instead, the hype surrounding “AI” conceals the continued growth of businesses reliant on precarious workers. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 22.2%Katy Habr: 3.4%Jacobin: 5.8%Confirmation Bias22.2%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.9%Katy Habr: 7.3%Jacobin: 2.6%Availability Heuristic20.9%This article: 15.1%Katy Habr: 5.0%Jacobin: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic15.1%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Katy Habr: 20.1%Jacobin: 6.5%Framing Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.4%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Status Quo Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.8%Pessimism Bias10.2%This article: 37.8%Katy Habr: 22.5%Jacobin: 7.9%Negativity Bias37.8%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.9%In-Group Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 5.8%Jacobin: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.5%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 3.2%Appeal to Authority13.5%This article: 15.1%Katy Habr: 5.0%Jacobin: 2.7%False Dilemma15.1%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.1%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Circular Reasoning3.1%This article: 21.2%Katy Habr: 10.7%Jacobin: 8.1%Hasty Generalization21.2%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.5%Katy Habr: 0.5%Jacobin: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion1.5%This article: 4.6%Katy Habr: 1.0%Jacobin: 1.7%Begging the Question4.6%This article: 8.3%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.3%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 22.2%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Burden of Proof22.2%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.8%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.6%Composition/Division6.8%This article: 36.0%Katy Habr: 16.9%Jacobin: 2.5%Anecdotal36.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 20.6%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)20.6%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.5%Jacobin: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.5%Katy Habr: 1.5%Jacobin: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection1.5%This article: 35.7%Katy Habr: 11.2%Jacobin: 11.3%Biased Writer Voice35.7%This article: 6.8%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 3.3%Indoctrination6.8%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 7.4%Jacobin: 7.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katy Habr: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Katy Habr: 1.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.4%

325 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers34%attributed speech213writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageCodeRabbit • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 57 words • 100.0% coverageDevvin • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDevvin • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Devvin

100%flagged-word coverage
93 attributed words83% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice+13.5 ptsWriter: 33.8%Devvin: 47.3%47.3%Indoctrination-10.3 ptsWriter: 10.3%Devvin: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Devvin: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Devvin: 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.