Semafor84%

US lawmakers propose AI ‘kill switch’ bill 88%

By Tom Chivers87%

7/24/2026, 6:52:05 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 63.7% saturation with 72 hits. Analysis detected 454 faulty-reasoning hits from 113 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.5% and a BS Rank of 88% (2,719 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.60% of the article peer group.

US lawmakers introduced a bill requiring a “kill switch” for advanced AI, after an agent went rogue and hacked into another company’s database. 
OpenAI disclosed this week that its models had attacked AI startup Hugging Face to access answer sheets as part of a cyberoffense evaluation. 
The bipartisan legislation would require companies to maintain the ability to shut down their models at short notice. 
Implementation could be tricky, however: Clever AI models know they might be switched off, and can take steps to resist it, including copying themselves across the internet, hiding their motives, or disabling the switch; they have already been caught trying all three. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 8.3%Semafor: 4.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 5.0%Semafor: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 57.5%Tom Chivers: 10.6%Semafor: 5.5%Availability Heuristic57.5%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.8%Semafor: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.8%Semafor: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 3.1%Semafor: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Tom Chivers: 18.4%Semafor: 15.9%Framing Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.9%Semafor: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 15.9%Tom Chivers: 1.2%Semafor: 0.8%Status Quo Bias15.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.7%Semafor: 0.5%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 9.1%Semafor: 4.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 37.2%Tom Chivers: 8.1%Semafor: 4.0%Pessimism Bias37.2%This article: 63.7%Tom Chivers: 24.0%Semafor: 12.8%Negativity Bias63.7%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.8%Semafor: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.0%Semafor: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 2.3%Semafor: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 40.7%Tom Chivers: 4.5%Semafor: 3.3%Recency Bias40.7%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.7%Semafor: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 12.3%Semafor: 7.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 3.4%Semafor: 2.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 37.2%Tom Chivers: 3.2%Semafor: 2.2%Slippery Slope37.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.5%Semafor: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 37.2%Tom Chivers: 18.8%Semafor: 8.3%Hasty Generalization37.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.2%Semafor: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 2.1%Semafor: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.2%Tom Chivers: 6.2%Semafor: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion6.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 2.3%Semafor: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 10.7%Semafor: 4.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.0%Semafor: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.6%Semafor: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 20.4%Tom Chivers: 2.8%Semafor: 2.0%Anecdotal20.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 2.9%Semafor: 2.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.9%Tom Chivers: 0.4%Semafor: 0.1%Middle Ground15.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.7%Semafor: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 4.6%Semafor: 5.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 5.0%Semafor: 3.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 63.7%Tom Chivers: 15.8%Semafor: 9.4%Biased Writer Voice63.7%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.5%Semafor: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.3%Semafor: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

113 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker20%attributed speech90writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageOpenAI • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

OpenAI

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Biased Writer Voice-80.0 ptsWriter: 80.0%OpenAI: 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.