Futurism⁠88%

Health Care Workers Furious as NYC Replaces Nurses With AI ⁠65%

By Frank Landymore⁠67%

7/15/2026, 11:32:49 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Anecdotal, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 46.8% saturation with 260 hits. Analysis detected 1,359 faulty-reasoning hits from 556 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠65% (7,667 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.00% of the article peer group.

Twelve nurses in New York City were laid off on Sunday and replaced with AI software, according to their union — a move that comes not long after nurses went on strike and fought for safeguards against AI. 
One of the laid off workers, Marilyn Shuler, had worked at Montefiore hospital in the Bronx as a utilization nurse for 39 years before suddenly losing her job. 
Utilization nurses review patient charts to show that their care is medically necessary so that an insurance company will cover it. 
“I’ve always, always taken so much pride in the organization that I’ve worked for all these years, and just to be treated this way,” Shuler told The Guardian . 
“It’s disrespectful, and it’s very disheartening, and my colleagues feel the same way as well.” 
The New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA), which represents the healthcare workers, issued a statement earlier this month warning that Montefiore intended to replace nurses with AI. 
That has now come to bear. 
It also drew attention to the fact that the company providing the AI software, Datavant, has partnerships with Palantir , the surveillance tech firm which has stirred considerable controversy for its collaboration with ICE . 
In January, some 15,000 nurses started what would become a 41-day strike at several of the state’s largest hospitals. 
The outcome of this was a new three-year contract which included historic safeguards against AI. 
But when Shuler and others returned to work in February, their workflow was changed without explanation, according to The Guardian . 
After a period of radio silence from management, the dozen nurses abruptly received 45-day notices in late May saying that they would be laid off. 
“We are outraged about these layoffs because these dedicated nurses are being replaced by AI,” Shaiju Kalathil, a Montefiore nurse and a union committee member, said in the statement. 
“This is a violation of the contract that we recently won by going on strike. 
It should also concern every practitioner and patient who cares about the future of healthcare and the quality of care they receive.” 
There’ve been clear warning signs that AI could disrupt healthcare workers. 
Doctors and nurses use AI tools for clinical notes, and some clinics use AI to help triage patients. 
Shortly after the nurses’ strike, the CEO of the NYC Health and Hospitals, the largest city healthcare system in the US, openly enthused about replacing radiologists with AI . 
The transition to using AI could carry significant risks. 
In Brazil, a 32-year-old woman reportedly died after an AI system for assigning hospital beds left her waiting five days to be transferred to an intensive care unit. 
Montefiore denies the framing that it replaced workers with AI. 
“As is often the case, the claims by NYSNA are inaccurate and misleading,” Joe Solmonese, senior vice-president for government relations and strategic communications at Montefiore, told The Guardian . 
“What is true is that we are always investing in new technology to ensure the best care and outcomes for our patients and will continue to do so for the betterment of the people we serve.” 
More on AI: A Majority of Americans Now Support Seizing Wealth From AI Industry 
The post Health Care Workers Furious as NYC Replaces Nurses With AI appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.5%Frank Landymore: 4.4%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.9%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Frank Landymore: 5.8%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic11.9%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.5%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.9%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.8%Frank Landymore: 10.6%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect13.8%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.5%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.7%Frank Landymore: 0.5%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Frank Landymore: 1.4%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias6.5%This article: 5.6%Frank Landymore: 2.9%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias5.6%This article: 46.8%Frank Landymore: 20.9%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias46.8%This article: 13.5%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.6%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Frank Landymore: 0.8%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.9%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.1%Frank Landymore: 2.1%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias12.1%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.1%Frank Landymore: 5.5%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority10.1%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.8%Frank Landymore: 9.7%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization8.8%This article: 8.8%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring8.8%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 21.6%Frank Landymore: 8.2%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion21.6%This article: 10.3%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question10.3%This article: 12.1%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.1%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 6.5%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature6.5%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.7%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal14.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.2%Frank Landymore: 3.2%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.2%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 4.3%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.8%Frank Landymore: 17.6%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice1.8%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.4%

556 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers36%attributed speech354writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageMarilyn Shuler • 29 words • 0.0% coverageMarilyn Shuler • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNew York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageShaiju Kalathil • 29 words • 0.0% coverageShaiju Kalathil • 15 words • 0.0% coverageShaiju Kalathil • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Solmonese • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Solmonese • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joe Solmonese

100%flagged-word coverage
65 attributed words32% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -14.7 ptsWriter: 14.7%Joe Solmonese: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Joe Solmonese: 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.