Futurism⁠88%

OpenAI Strikes Bold Deal With Kalshi to Mix Together the Most Hated Technologies in Existence: AI and Prediction Markets ⁠41%

By Frank Landymore⁠67%

7/15/2026, 7:33:08 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Biased Writer Voice, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.1% saturation with 214 hits. Analysis detected 1,600 faulty-reasoning hits from 593 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠41% (13,092 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 59.80% of the article peer group.

Is it not enough to simply watch the beautiful game, unadorned? 
These days you might use an AI chatbot to keep abreast of what’s happening in the World Cup. 
And that AI chatbot, in a sign of the times, might try to shove prediction market odds in your face as another way of ostensibly keeping you up to speed. 
Because are you really getting the full picture if you don’t know where a bunch of gamblers fall on the outcome? 
This is exactly what OpenAI is doing. 
The Sam Altman-led company quietly struck a deal with Kalshi, which lets you bet on outcomes far beyond sports, to show its prediction market data in ChatGPT, the New York Times reported . 
It’s perhaps the inevitable melding of two of the most divisive innovations to come out of the tech industry in recent years. 
Searching France and Spain on ChatGPT ahead of their quarterfinal clash on Tuesday returned a graphic that showed that Les Bleus had a 60 percent chance of winning, according to the reporting. 
( We hope no one acted on that information .) 
Asking about the England and Argentina game on Wednesday showed that the Three Lions had a 54 percent chance of coming out on top. 
Neither side promoted the deal, and the graphic is tellingly light on branding. 
There are no logos and no outbound links. 
The only sign of the collab is a small notice in the bottom left corner stating, “Source: Kalshi.” 
This is the first partnership of its kind for OpenAI. 
The company recently updated its help page to stress that users “cannot place bets through ChatGPT,” with the Kalshi data being limited to “queries related to the 2026 World Cup,” according to the NYT . 
Zooming out, it’s another sign of prediction markets laundering their image by glomming themselves onto other, more credible brands. 
In January, Kalshi partnered with CNN to provide its real-time prediction data on the news network’s broadcasts. 
Its rival Polymarket entered into a similar partnership with Dow Jones , the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, that same month. 
Both have also partnered with Google to show their data in search results. 
Unlike traditional betting platforms, prediction markets don’t frame what they provide as gambling: they provide markets, not bets. 
They allow you to wager on all kinds of real-life events, ranging from the geopolitical outcomes to the completely trivial. 
Polymarket lets you bet on the destruction caused by wildfires and the use of nuclear weapons , for example, while also giving you the chance to make a buck on whether Cristiano Ronaldo will cry at the World Cup . 
(He did.) 
Their fuzzy legal framework, plus their Wild West approach to gambling, has led to numerous controversies. 
Suspiciously timed bets on massive events like the US’s capture of ousted Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro have raised concerns of rampant insider trading and put pressure on lawmakers to crackdown on the platforms. 
Arrests have been made in some cases , but these have been rare. 
Put simply, for OpenAI, it may be somewhat risky to associate itself with all this baggage, which might be why the Kalshi collaboration is very limited — at least for now. 
More on: Grim New Prediction Market Lets Gamblers Bet on Raging Wildfires 
The post OpenAI Strikes Bold Deal With Kalshi to Mix Together the Most Hated Technologies in Existence: AI and Prediction Markets appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.2%Frank Landymore: 4.4%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.9%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Frank Landymore: 5.8%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic9.4%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.5%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.3%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.3%This article: 5.9%Frank Landymore: 1.9%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias5.9%This article: 17.9%Frank Landymore: 10.6%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect17.9%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.5%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.5%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.4%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Frank Landymore: 2.9%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias10.8%This article: 36.1%Frank Landymore: 20.9%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias36.1%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Frank Landymore: 1.6%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error3.2%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.8%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%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: 7.3%Frank Landymore: 2.1%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias7.3%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: 21.6%Frank Landymore: 5.5%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority21.6%This article: 9.1%Frank Landymore: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma9.1%This article: 3.2%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope3.2%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.7%Frank Landymore: 9.7%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization6.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.7%Frank Landymore: 8.2%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion13.7%This article: 3.5%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question3.5%This article: 16.7%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.2%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof5.2%This article: 3.0%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature3.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 21.8%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal21.8%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.6%Frank Landymore: 3.2%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.6%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: 30.5%Frank Landymore: 4.3%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote30.5%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 30.4%Frank Landymore: 17.6%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice30.4%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: 6.7%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.7%

593 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers21%attributed speech468writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageOpenAI • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageKalshi • 17 words • 0.0% coveragePolymarket • 22 words • 0.0% coverageGoogle • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coveragePolymarket • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageFuturism • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

OpenAI

100%flagged-word coverage
7 attributed words5.6% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+62.8 ptsWriter: 37.2%OpenAI: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-38.5 ptsWriter: 38.5%OpenAI: 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.