Futurism88%

Author Invited to Give Speech at OpenAI Headquarters, Uses Opportunity to Trash AI to Their Faces 86%

By Victor Tangermann83%

7/21/2026, 3:50:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hasty Generalization, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 66% saturation with 431 hits. Analysis detected 2,463 faulty-reasoning hits from 653 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 78.1% and a BS Rank of 86% (3,129 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.70% of the article peer group.

Little love has been lost between writers and the AI industry. 
Companies like OpenAI and Anthropic have ripped off their life’s work without permission, incurring countless copyright infringement lawsuits in the process  while creating a product that’s often putting them out of work. 
So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that when renowned author Dave Eggers was invited to OpenAI’s headquarters in the Bay Area, he had some choice words for the roughly 200 attendees. 
As he recalled in an interview with the Financial Times , Eggers was invited after he excoriated CEO Sam Altman for gushing over an AI-generated short story. 
In March 2025, Altman said he was “really struck” by a short story about AI and grief  which was widely panned as being “just trash  and an  atrocious piece of writing  that would’ve gotten a first-year creative writing student a failing grade. 
Eggers was also unimpressed, telling the FT he thought the story was “pastiche nonsense” and wondered “just how gullible and ridiculous you’d have to be to think that there would ever be an AI novel that anybody would read?” 
In an apparent attempt to prove him wrong, OpenAI invited him to talk to its workers  and Eggers relished the opportunity to set the record straight. 
He told the staff that the “effect of ChatGPT on educators’ lives is catastrophic,” adding that “whether you intended to do it or not, you’ve made every teacher’s life infinitely more difficult than it was two years ago.” 
“If students are using it to compose, which is the biggest tragedy of all, they’ll never learn to write,” he added. 
“And their voice is stolen from them. 
They’ll never have the ability to say their truth and tell their own story. 
And that’s silencing an entire generation or two.” 
Eggers also had some advice for an employee who said they had used ChatGPT to write a poem: to touch grass. 
“So why don’t you leave your house, leave the screen, meet some people, get yourself in a writing group,” he told the staffer. 
“Another human might be very encouraging and help you express yourself authentically.” 
“It ended up being a very poignant hour,” Eggers concluded. 
The best-selling author’s comments are cathartic, to say the least. 
Eggers is one of many prominent authors , who’ve spoken out against the use of AI, from Lev Grossman to Kazuo Ishiguro . 
For years now, writers have watched as large language model-based tools have made a mockery of their work. 
The advent of AI chatbots has also minted an entirely new class of people who refer themselves as “novelists ,” churning out dozens of “books” made up entirely of AI slop that choke out real writing in the marketplace. 
Amazon in particular has been flooded with meaningless self-published AI drivel . 
That’s not all. 
Students are rapidly losing the ability to read , having long turned to AI tools to write essays and other assignments. 
Teachers are returning to the use of pen and paper, banning laptops and smartphones amidst an AI cheating crisis . 
Literary magazines are no longer accepting writer submissions thanks to the rampant proliferation of AI slop. 
Even prominent publisher Hachette Book Group, one of the largest publishing houses in the US, was forced to pull a horror novel earlier this year after the author was accused of using AI to help write the book. 
In short, Eggers was entirely within his right to call out OpenAI staffers for enabling the rapid cognitive deterioration of an entire generation, tech that has turned educators into involuntary AI detectives, and budding writers into prompt engineers. 
At least the author enjoyed being given the opportunity to send an important message to the people monetizing the whole mess. 
“I had a ball,” Eggers told the FT . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 22.1%Victor Tangermann: 6.3%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias22.1%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.6%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Victor Tangermann: 5.5%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic7.7%This article: 6.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.4%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic6.0%This article: 4.9%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Victor Tangermann: 11.3%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect6.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.5%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%Victor Tangermann: 2.8%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias1.8%This article: 21.3%Victor Tangermann: 6.1%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias21.3%This article: 66.0%Victor Tangermann: 23.7%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias66.0%This article: 3.2%Victor Tangermann: 2.1%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.7%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.8%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias5.8%This article: 4.1%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.5%Victor Tangermann: 7.8%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority3.5%This article: 5.8%Victor Tangermann: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma5.8%This article: 7.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.2%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope7.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 44.3%Victor Tangermann: 10.0%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization44.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.5%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon3.5%This article: 16.4%Victor Tangermann: 8.8%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion16.4%This article: 4.9%Victor Tangermann: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question4.9%This article: 13.8%Victor Tangermann: 3.9%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.8%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof5.8%This article: 1.8%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature1.8%This article: 6.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division6.0%This article: 15.3%Victor Tangermann: 3.8%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal15.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.4%Victor Tangermann: 3.1%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.4%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 6.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity6.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 5.8%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy5.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 4.1%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.4%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 52.2%Victor Tangermann: 21.7%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice52.2%This article: 18.2%Victor Tangermann: 1.3%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination18.2%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.2%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Victor Tangermann: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.1%

653 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker32%attributed speech445writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageDave Eggers • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageDave Eggers • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageDave Eggers • 38 words • 100.0% coverageDave Eggers • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDave Eggers • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDave Eggers • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDave Eggers • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDave Eggers • 23 words • 100.0% coverageDave Eggers • 12 words • 100.0% coverageDave Eggers • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDave Eggers • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Dave Eggers

91%flagged-word coverage
208 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Biased Writer Voice-76.6 ptsWriter: 76.6%Dave Eggers: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+30.4 ptsWriter: 8.5%Dave Eggers: 38.9%38.9%Attempt to Sell a Product +13.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dave Eggers: 13.0%13.0%

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.