Read the letter Eric Schmidt 86%

By Will Martin85%

7/13/2026, 12:56:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Begging the Question, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 37.4% saturation with 110 hits. Analysis detected 888 faulty-reasoning hits from 294 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 77.6% and a BS Rank of 86% (3,130 of 21,172 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.20% of the article peer group.

Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt is among the big-name signatories of the letter. 
Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images 
More than 200 top economists, execs, and researchers warned about AI's potential impact on jobs. 
An 88-word letter published on Monday calls for stronger guardrails as AI becomes more powerful. 
Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Anthropic cofounder Jack Clark are among the signatories. 
More than 200 top economists, executives, and researchers  including over a dozen Nobel Prize winners  have signed a letter warning about AI's potential threat to jobs . 
The 88-word-long letter, titled "We Must Act Now," says that AI could become "radically more powerful" in the coming decade, and argues that policymakers worldwide need to do more to build guardrails for the technology or risk "large-scale job displacement." 
Signatories include former Google CEO Eric Schmidt , LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman , and Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz, Daron Acemoglu, and Simon Johnson. 
Google AI lead Jeff Dean , Anthropic cofounder Jack Clark, and OpenAI finance boss Sarah Friar also signed. 
Read the full text of the letter, organized by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab and subtitled "A Statement on AI's Transformation of the Economy," here: 
AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years. 
This could drive an unprecedented transformation of our economy, larger than the Industrial Revolution, but unfolding over a vastly shorter time frame. 
It could bring risks, including large-scale job displacement, as well as opportunities such as major gains in living standards. 
Economists, policymakers and technology leaders must act now to understand the economics of transformative AI and to build the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society. 
Read the original article on Business Insider 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Will Martin: 2.9%Business Insider: 3.4%Availability Heuristic12.6%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 31.0%Will Martin: 10.2%Business Insider: 4.8%Framing Effect31.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 2.0%Business Insider: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Will Martin: 0.5%Business Insider: 2.6%Optimism Bias3.7%This article: 25.2%Will Martin: 6.6%Business Insider: 1.5%Pessimism Bias25.2%This article: 29.6%Will Martin: 11.2%Business Insider: 4.7%Negativity Bias29.6%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 3.8%Business Insider: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 3.8%Business Insider: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Will Martin: 1.1%Business Insider: 0.7%In-Group Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 16.3%Will Martin: 2.3%Business Insider: 2.7%Halo Effect16.3%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 37.4%Will Martin: 20.8%Business Insider: 3.4%Appeal to Authority37.4%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 2.0%Business Insider: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 13.6%Will Martin: 3.9%Business Insider: 0.6%Slippery Slope13.6%This article: 12.2%Will Martin: 1.8%Business Insider: 0.1%Circular Reasoning12.2%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 3.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 21.1%Will Martin: 10.6%Business Insider: 0.5%Bandwagon21.1%This article: 13.6%Will Martin: 5.7%Business Insider: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion13.6%This article: 25.9%Will Martin: 3.7%Business Insider: 0.7%Begging the Question25.9%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 2.6%Business Insider: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 3.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.2%Will Martin: 1.6%Business Insider: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.2%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.6%Will Martin: 2.0%Business Insider: 1.1%Unattributed Quote13.6%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.1%Will Martin: 5.2%Business Insider: 3.4%Biased Writer Voice4.1%This article: 12.2%Will Martin: 10.9%Business Insider: 1.2%Indoctrination12.2%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Martin: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Will Martin: 1.6%Business Insider: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.9%

294 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers18%attributed speech240writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageEric Schmidt • 12 words • 100.0% coverageBloomberg • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageEric Schmidt • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageStanford Digital Economy Lab • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Eric Schmidt

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words46% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice+48.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Eric Schmidt: 48.0%48.0%Unattributed Quote-16.7 ptsWriter: 16.7%Eric Schmidt: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-15.0 ptsWriter: 15.0%Eric Schmidt: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Eric Schmidt: 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.