BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Negativity Bias, and Framing Effect, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 36.4% saturation with 72 hits. Analysis detected 454 faulty-reasoning hits from 198 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 77.6% and a BS Rank of 86% (3,210 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.30% of the article peer group.

AI agents have made inroads in businesses and government. 
Now they’re hitting the pageant stage. 
Samantha Smitte, 37, who worked at IBM for a decade, spent about $150 on AI agents to train for the Miss New York USA pageant next week, she told Semafor. 
They run practice interviews with her, suggest workout routines, keep her up on current events, and suggest dresses like those of past winners. 
Her AI “poise and style” coach for her onstage posing practice didn’t give good advice, unfortunately, so Smitte went with a human for that. 
Space for AI in the pageant world has been contested: As an April Fools’ joke this year, the Miss America organization posted that it would use AI with contestants on stage, asking them to solve real-world problems. 
A pageant of competing AI-generated women, dubbed “Miss AI,” received mixed reviews, with some saying it celebrated diversity and others saying humans are losing touch with reality. 
Smitte said she can be fully authentic while using AI and called it her “collaborator and thought partner,” but added, “I don’t think we’re ready to see the AI in front of the curtain yet.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 1.6%Semafor: 4.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 1.1%Semafor: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Rachyl Jones: 3.5%Semafor: 5.5%Availability Heuristic4.5%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 1.6%Semafor: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 3.8%Semafor: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 4.1%Semafor: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.2%Rachyl Jones: 4.1%Semafor: 15.9%Framing Effect22.2%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 2.1%Semafor: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.5%Semafor: 0.5%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 36.4%Rachyl Jones: 13.3%Semafor: 4.9%Optimism Bias36.4%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 2.9%Semafor: 4.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 25.8%Rachyl Jones: 6.0%Semafor: 12.8%Negativity Bias25.8%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 3.0%Semafor: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 1.0%Semafor: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Rachyl Jones: 2.6%Semafor: 2.1%Halo Effect11.6%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.9%Semafor: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Rachyl Jones: 2.5%Semafor: 3.3%Recency Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 2.7%Semafor: 7.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 13.6%Rachyl Jones: 8.4%Semafor: 2.5%False Dilemma13.6%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.7%Rachyl Jones: 10.6%Semafor: 8.3%Hasty Generalization16.7%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 1.4%Semafor: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 5.6%Semafor: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 1.8%Semafor: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 3.1%Semafor: 4.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 1.1%Semafor: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.6%Rachyl Jones: 6.0%Semafor: 2.0%Anecdotal11.6%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.7%Rachyl Jones: 1.9%Semafor: 2.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.7%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 28.8%Rachyl Jones: 2.1%Semafor: 5.1%Unattributed Quote28.8%This article: 17.7%Rachyl Jones: 1.3%Semafor: 3.9%Quote-first Misdirection17.7%This article: 18.7%Rachyl Jones: 2.3%Semafor: 9.4%Biased Writer Voice18.7%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 1.1%Semafor: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachyl Jones: 0.0%Semafor: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

198 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers64%attributed speech72writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageSamantha Smitte • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageSamantha Smitte • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMiss America organization • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageSamantha Smitte • 35 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words29% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Miss America organization: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-37.5 ptsWriter: 37.5%Miss America organization: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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