Coinbase AI Sends Mass “Breaking News” Alert That’s Completely Hallucinated ⁠58%

By Victor Tangermann⁠83%

7/9/2026, 5:50:54 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Unattributed Quote, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 62.2% saturation with 313 hits. Analysis detected 1,299 faulty-reasoning hits from 503 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠58% (9,251 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.70% of the article peer group.

Crypto marketplace Coinbase is under fire after sending out an AI-generated breaking news alert that Norway’s national men’s soccer team had clinched a spot in the quarter finals of the ongoing FIFA World Cup by beating Brazil 3-2 — before the game even started. 
While Norway did eventually beat Brazil — with a final score of 2-1, contrary to what Coinbase’s AI claimed — the glaring error didn’t sit well with netizens, particularly considering Coinbase had struck a partnership with prediction markets app Kalshi. 
A hallucinated news alert could’ve caused bettors to lose out, a panic triggered by an entirely made-up World Cup match outcome. 
It’s also baffling considering how long companies have been dealing with this exact problem. 
Since the dawn of large language model-based tools like ChatGPT, the bots have been confidently telling lies and fabricating facts . 
That’s despite hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on the tech’s development. 
Combined with a growing obsession over prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket, it’s a fatal mix that could trigger plenty of chaos, as experts warn of a surge in gambling addiction . 
Puzzled users on social media noticed Coinbase’s AI hallucination, calling out the company for the “ dangerous and irresponsible ” flub. 
“Taking a look with the team,” Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong tweeted in response to the embarrassing slip up. 
“Thanks for reporting it.” 
The company’s head of consumer products, Max Branzburg, claimed hours later that “we fixed the incorrect story and made some updates to avoid these types of inaccuracies in the future.” 
Despite the significant humiliation, Branzburg gloated about the “power of AI-enabled 24/7 insights for trading,” while conceding that Coinbase “obviously” still needs to “tune it to address these types of issues.” 
The executive even had the gall to take credit for getting certain things right, arguing that “Norway did win and [star player Erling] Haaland did score 2 goals, so maybe the AI knew something we didn’t!” 
Needless to say, it’s a bizarre argument, considering the AI was completely wrong about the outcome of the game before it even started. 
The crypto firm is far from the last to have sent out entirely incorrect new alerts. 
In perhaps the worst error, Apple was forced to pull an AI feature that consistently delivered bogus news alerts to iPhone users in January of last year. 
The BBC had filed a formal complaint after the AI falsely told users that Luigi Mangione, who stands accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, had shot himself. 
Mangione is very much alive to this day and awaiting his federal trial, which was recently postponed to January 2027 . 
Norway’s soccer team is set to take on England on Saturday, July 11, in Miami. 
More on Coinbase: Coinbase CEO Pulls Up Predictions Market During Earnings Call and Rattles Off Words People Were Betting He’d Say 
The post Coinbase AI Sends Mass “Breaking News” Alert That’s Completely Hallucinated appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 6.3%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.6%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Victor Tangermann: 5.5%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic7.4%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.4%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.2%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Victor Tangermann: 11.3%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect9.9%This article: 4.2%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion4.2%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.8%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.3%Victor Tangermann: 6.1%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias13.3%This article: 62.2%Victor Tangermann: 23.7%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias62.2%This article: 6.2%Victor Tangermann: 2.1%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias6.2%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: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect7.2%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: 4.2%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%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: 6.4%Victor Tangermann: 7.8%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority6.4%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 6.4%Victor Tangermann: 3.2%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope6.4%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.4%Victor Tangermann: 10.0%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization7.4%This article: 8.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring8.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 8.8%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 4.6%Victor Tangermann: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question4.6%This article: 6.8%Victor Tangermann: 3.9%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.5%Victor Tangermann: 3.8%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal9.5%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.1%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 6.2%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity6.2%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 28.6%Victor Tangermann: 4.1%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote28.6%This article: 3.6%Victor Tangermann: 2.4%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection3.6%This article: 35.0%Victor Tangermann: 21.7%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice35.0%This article: 4.2%Victor Tangermann: 1.3%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination4.2%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: 7.6%Victor Tangermann: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.6%

503 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers24%attributed speech384writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Armstrong • 18 words • 100.0% coverageBrian Armstrong • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMax Branzburg • 30 words • 100.0% coverageMax Branzburg • 31 words • 100.0% coverageMax Branzburg • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Max Branzburg

100%flagged-word coverage
97 attributed words82% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice+40.7 ptsWriter: 28.4%Max Branzburg: 69.1%69.1%Unattributed Quote+52.4 ptsWriter: 15.6%Max Branzburg: 68.0%68.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%Max Branzburg: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Max Branzburg: 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.