Futurism⁠88%

Scientists Identify Most Degenerate Known ChatGPT User ⁠55%

By Frank Landymore⁠67%

7/8/2026, 5:45:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 54.2% saturation with 291 hits. Analysis detected 1,654 faulty-reasoning hits from 537 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠55% (9,839 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.00% of the article peer group.

AI's promises tend to be pretty highfalutin: that you can use it as your "second brain," to invent "new physics," or to become the genius autodidact you always dreamed of being. 
Or you can drop these pretensions and just use it to crank out unimaginable amounts of fetish slop, as a group of researchers from the University of Washington and the University of Colorado Boulder currently in the middle of pouring bleach on their eyeballs inadvertently discovered. 
While analyzing a dataset comprising millions of conversations with an old version of ChatGPT, these innocent academics encountered a user who is — it's no exaggeration to say — the final boss of AI gooners. 
Specifically, this anonymous horndog spent months using the OpenAI chatbot to generate vividly detailed pregnancy fanfiction about the high school characters in the visual novel series "Doki Doki Literature Club!" 
(itself a bizarre piece of media that the uninitiated will need to research for themselves.) 
For this, the baby bump fetishist earned the plaudits of being the "most prolific user" in the fiction dataset — and "the clearest example of an infinite story demander," the researchers wrote in their resulting yet-to-be-peer-reviewed study, which was first spotted by the Japanese outlet ITMedia and later picked up in English by Automaton. 
You may be appalled by the subject matter, but the study is a fascinating glimpse into how AI users use chatbots to generate fiction, which made up more than a third of the over 500,000 anonymized conversations in the dataset. 
To help categorize this mountain of data, the researchers used another large language model, finding that, of the fictional conversations, nearly half were fanfiction, and over a quarter were sexually explicit. 
One thing that stood out were the small group of "power users" who obsessively used the AI to this end. 
They generally fell along two distinct archetypes, the researchers found. 
One were "story cyclers" who ask for iterations of the same story for a certain period before moving on, and "infinite story demanders," who repeatedly use the AI to revise variations of the same story over much longer periods of time 
The average fiction-generating user entered repetitive prompts 42 percent of the time, they found. 
Among the ten most prolific users in the dataset, this jumped to 85 percent. 
"Some of this behavior may be attributed to users' dissatisfaction — the story is not quite right, at least not yet," the researchers wrote. 
"But we argue that in many cases it is fueled by the satisfaction of reading endless permutations of the same story, none of which end the same way twice." 
The extreme power users definitely tipped the scales, as just two percent of them in the fiction category were responsible for more than 80 percent of the conversations. 
And our "Doki Doki Literature Club!" 
pregnancy fetishist was the king of them all. 
"While this user is a particularly prolific outlier, and we can't say with certainty why they are generating these stories, many prolific users ask for the same kinds of fiction in a similar vein," the researchers concluded. 
More on AI: Bank of America Warns That AI Investors Are in for a Nasty Reality Check 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.3%Frank Landymore: 4.4%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias12.3%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.9%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.6%Frank Landymore: 5.8%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic15.6%This article: 13.4%Frank Landymore: 1.5%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic13.4%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 12.1%Frank Landymore: 1.9%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias12.1%This article: 21.8%Frank Landymore: 10.6%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect21.8%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: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.9%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 47.5%Frank Landymore: 20.9%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias47.5%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: 7.1%Frank Landymore: 0.8%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect7.1%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: 13.6%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem13.6%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: 10.6%Frank Landymore: 9.7%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization10.6%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: 24.8%Frank Landymore: 8.2%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion24.8%This article: 4.5%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question4.5%This article: 15.1%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.1%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.1%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof10.1%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.6%Frank Landymore: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division2.6%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal0.0%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: 26.8%Frank Landymore: 4.3%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote26.8%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 54.2%Frank Landymore: 17.6%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice54.2%This article: 2.8%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination2.8%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: 3.2%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.2%

537 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.