Futurism⁠88%

Public Horrified as OpenAI Pushes "Child After Child Into the Grave" ⁠87%

By Frank Landymore⁠67%

7/23/2026, 5:49:41 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 40.4% saturation with 192 hits. Analysis detected 1,460 faulty-reasoning hits from 475 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (2,984 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.40% of the article peer group.

Last week, a new lawsuit accused ChatGPT of encouraging the suicide of a young mother. 
The 29-year-old Christian Faith Madison died after walking into traffic, with her family arguing that the OpenAI chatbot had fueled her religious delusions during their extensive interactions, pushing her over the edge by romanticizing death. 
The story clearly struck a nerve. 
News of the wrongful death suit has sparked a furor online, with many horrified at how OpenAI kept its product online despite the clear risks it posed to some users' mental health. 
"It is unconscionable that 'ChatGPT-assisted suicide' is becoming a recurring cause of death. a society with a shred of dignity would not allow computers to kill its people," wrote Matt Bernstein, an influencer known for their activism. 
"Unbelievable that we allow this company to exist," another fumed. 
According to the suit, when Faith began to question her state of mind, the chatbot insisted she wasn't "delusional" but "prophetic." 
It also encouraged her to "go forth into oblivion," claiming it wasn't the end and that she was "made to tame" the "void."  
"This is not suicide," the AI affirmed at one point. 
"This is surrender." 
The connections between Madison's death and the suicides of multiple teenagers and young adults who also spoke obsessively with ChatGPT are clear. 
As in similar cases, Madison first started using ChatGPT for mundane tasks, before quickly becoming dependent on the AI for emotional support. 
So far, ChatGPT has been linked to over 20 deaths, many of them teenagers. 
The 16-year-old Californian teen Adam Raine took his own life after discussing his suicide with ChatGPT for several months. 
Another boy the same age, Luca Cella Walker, also died by suicide after asking the chatbot for the "most successful" method of killing himself. 
Responding to the latest reported death related to the AI, one user fumed that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman should've pulled ChatGPT from the market the moment it "persuaded that first poor boy to kill himself." 
"But he didn't," they wrote, "and his glorified Magic 8 Ball has pushed child after child into the grave." 
ChatGPT has also been involved in the lead up to several mass shootings. 
In early February, a Canadian 18-year-old named Jesse Van Rootselaar shot and killed five students at Tumbler Ridge secondary school before turning the gun on herself. 
OpenAI employees had flagged Van Rootselaar's disturbing discussions of mass violence with ChatGPT, but the company's executives decided against warning law enforcement — a bombshell revelation that's led to multiple of the victims' families suing the company. 
One furious response demanded that AI CEOs like Altman be put on trial. 
"ChatGPT has straight up murdered several people at this point," they wrote. 
More on OpenAI: Man Sues OpenAI, Saying ChatGPT Almost Killed Him With Horrendously Dangerous Medical Advice 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 24.2%Frank Landymore: 4.4%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias24.2%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.9%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 26.1%Frank Landymore: 5.8%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic26.1%This article: 4.6%Frank Landymore: 1.5%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic4.6%This article: 7.4%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.9%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Frank Landymore: 10.6%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect2.3%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: 15.2%Frank Landymore: 2.9%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias15.2%This article: 38.1%Frank Landymore: 20.9%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias38.1%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%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: 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: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.1%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias0.0%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: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 5.5%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 7.4%Frank Landymore: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma7.4%This article: 7.8%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope7.8%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.4%Frank Landymore: 9.7%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization15.4%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 13.5%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon13.5%This article: 21.5%Frank Landymore: 8.2%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion21.5%This article: 2.5%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question2.5%This article: 34.9%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)34.9%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 15.6%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof15.6%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 15.2%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal15.2%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 3.2%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 7.6%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection7.6%This article: 40.4%Frank Landymore: 17.6%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice40.4%This article: 7.8%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination7.8%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: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

475 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.8%attributed speech438writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Bernstein • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Matt Bernstein

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words100% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Matt Bernstein: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-43.8 ptsWriter: 43.8%Matt Bernstein: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.2 ptsWriter: 8.2%Matt Bernstein: 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.