A new plan emerges for AI apocalypse avoidance 10%

By Reed Albergotti74%

7/10/2026, 5:24:32 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Framing Effect, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 19.8% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 962 faulty-reasoning hits from 470 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 27.1% and a BS Rank of 10% (18,544 of 20,514 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 90.40% of the article peer group.

Reed’s view 
The AI Futures Project last year issued a gloomy prediction of what will happen if AI progress continues unchecked: Humanity doesn’t make it. 
This year, the research group headed by former OpenAI researcher Daniel Kokotajlo is going one step further. 
In AI 2040: Plan A , the group is advocating for the US and China to cooperate on a temporary pause of frontier AI research so the industry can build some scaffolding around safe development. 
“We’re not exactly de-growthers,” Kokotajlo told Semafor. 
“But if you want to actually benefit from that growth and abundance, you need to avoid the risks involved.” 
The idea has already drawn criticism from AI accelerationists who dismiss the “doomer” notion that superintelligent AI will inevitably destroy humanity. 
But if you read the report  and it is not light reading  “Plan A” is far from anti-AI propaganda. 
In fact, there is more than enough acceleration of AI to create unprecedented economic growth. 
It dispenses with the idea that AI replacing human labor will lead to economic ruin. 
But even if frontier AI development stopped today, current capabilities are enough to spur a years-long wave of innovation and economic growth. 
It just takes more data-center capacity and infrastructure for the benefits to fully materialize. 
“Plan A” pauses development for a couple of years, and has some pretty far-out ways of ensuring China and other countries don’t cheat to get ahead. 
The plan also reads a bit like a fairy tale in which world leadership suddenly comes together, setting aside politics, personal interest, and greed for the sake of humanity. 
It seems even more pie-in-the-sky when you consider brave global leadership is scarcer than GPUs and high-bandwidth memory. 
So far, the AI safety movement has used fear as a motivator. 
That’s clear in last year’s report, which made waves across tech and politics circles around the world. 
But after reading this year’s report, I wonder if a more optimistic message about the promise of AI and economic prosperity might be a better sales pitch, or at least lead to better outcomes. 
I posed the question to Kokotajlo, who said the goal was careful analysis, rather than persuasion: “Probably we’ll tick off a lot of people due to clumsy framing,” he said. 
“Hopefully, more savvy people can take inspiration from us and craft a plan that is really compelling and inspiring.” 
In other words, AI safety is not standing in the way of AI development and rapid economic growth. 
They can be the same thing. 
Notable 
China’s top diplomat last month told reporters Beijing is  accelerating the establishment of a global AI cooperation organization ,” CNBC reported. 
OpenAI has had some open disagreements with the White House on AI safety rules , Politico reported last month. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.4%Reed Albergotti: 5.7%Semafor: 4.7%Confirmation Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.0%Semafor: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 3.4%Semafor: 5.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 1.3%Semafor: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.1%Semafor: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 9.9%Semafor: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.5%Reed Albergotti: 5.9%Semafor: 15.9%Framing Effect18.5%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.3%Semafor: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.9%Semafor: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.0%Semafor: 0.6%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 16.4%Reed Albergotti: 7.4%Semafor: 5.1%Optimism Bias16.4%This article: 14.9%Reed Albergotti: 4.7%Semafor: 3.8%Pessimism Bias14.9%This article: 12.6%Reed Albergotti: 6.6%Semafor: 12.2%Negativity Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 1.6%Semafor: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.3%Semafor: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Reed Albergotti: 1.7%Semafor: 1.5%In-Group Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 2.4%Semafor: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 1.0%Semafor: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.0%Semafor: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.7%Reed Albergotti: 1.8%Semafor: 3.2%Recency Bias8.7%This article: 3.6%Reed Albergotti: 0.7%Semafor: 0.8%Primacy Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.3%Semafor: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.0%Semafor: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 4.5%Reed Albergotti: 0.7%Semafor: 0.4%Straw Man4.5%This article: 19.6%Reed Albergotti: 4.0%Semafor: 6.7%Appeal to Authority19.6%This article: 7.0%Reed Albergotti: 5.9%Semafor: 2.6%False Dilemma7.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 4.8%Semafor: 2.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.3%Semafor: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.0%Reed Albergotti: 15.5%Semafor: 7.9%Hasty Generalization17.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.7%Semafor: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.8%Semafor: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.8%Reed Albergotti: 4.8%Semafor: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion12.8%This article: 4.0%Reed Albergotti: 2.4%Semafor: 1.1%Begging the Question4.0%This article: 3.0%Reed Albergotti: 3.8%Semafor: 4.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.2%Semafor: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.9%Semafor: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.2%Semafor: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.4%Semafor: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.3%Reed Albergotti: 2.5%Semafor: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.3%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.4%Semafor: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.8%Semafor: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.2%Reed Albergotti: 2.1%Semafor: 5.2%Unattributed Quote10.2%This article: 4.7%Reed Albergotti: 1.0%Semafor: 4.0%Quote-first Misdirection4.7%This article: 19.8%Reed Albergotti: 5.3%Semafor: 9.4%Biased Writer Voice19.8%This article: 8.1%Reed Albergotti: 2.1%Semafor: 1.6%Indoctrination8.1%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.0%Semafor: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reed Albergotti: 0.9%Semafor: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Reed Albergotti: 2.6%Semafor: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.2%

470 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers33%attributed speech314writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageAI Futures Project • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDaniel Kokotajlo • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageDaniel Kokotajlo • 7 words • 100.0% coverageDaniel Kokotajlo • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageDaniel Kokotajlo • 30 words • 0.0% coverageDaniel Kokotajlo • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageCNBC • 22 words • 100.0% coveragePolitico • 19 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

CNBC

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words14% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%CNBC: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%CNBC: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-24.2 ptsWriter: 24.2%CNBC: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.8 ptsWriter: 10.8%CNBC: 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.