Gizmodo57%

China's Surreal AI-Generated Anti-Drug Ad Accidentally Made Drugs Look Cool 62%

By Webb Wright45%

7/2/2026, 1:55:06 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Unattributed Quote, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 47.8% saturation with 280 hits. Analysis detected 1,468 faulty-reasoning hits from 586 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.2% and a BS Rank of 62% (8,436 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.50% of the article peer group.

If you’re a law enforcement agency trying to warn the public about the harms of recreational drug use, the last thing you should do is make a music video glamorizing drug use. 
On Friday—the International Day Against Drug Abuse and International Trafficking—the Hong Kong Correctional Services Department (CSD) released an AI-generated anti-drug PSA. 
The only problem was that by giving the ad the same sparkly vibe as a Coca-Cola commercial, the agency unintentionally made illicit drug use seem pretty damn fun. 
We all remember those ads from the early 2000s, which told you if you smoked weed, you’d flatten like a pancake onto your couch and be able to speak with your dog. 
Those commercials may have accidentally sparked more curiosity than fear, but they didn’t come right out and give you a list of the various pleasures you might enjoy by getting high. 
The Hong Kong CSD ad, in contrast, opened with a surreal segment in which an AI-generated pop group called “Obsession” literally sang the praises of various illegal drugs. 
Each of the group’s four female members was meant to represent a different substance. 
“I’m Icy! 
Take a snort from me,” the one representing crystal meth said during the video. 
Another called Coke made that drug sound like some enhanced version of Gatorade: “Cocaine goes down easily and beats the heat,” she said. 
“It energizes and keeps you clear-headed. 
Super dope!” 
The other two members, Weedy and Little E, represented cannabis and etomidate, respectively—the latter being a clinical anesthetic found in some illicit vape pods and known colloquially as “space oil.” 
The ad eventually gets to the actual “drugs are bad, m’kay,” part. 
Icy, Coke, Weedy, and Little E transform into four grizzled elderly men, who are supposed to represent the true, frightening face of drug abuse. 
For a few terrible moments, they continue dancing onstage wearing their little skirts, before the sequence cuts to another AI-generated video of drug paraphernalia crawling with what appear to be cockroach-scorpion hybrids, followed by a black-and-white shot of the four men together in a jail cell, smiling psychotically. 
The words “Drugs are extremely harmful and can ruin a life” appear below, and the previously sugary pop music is twisted into the discordant tones of a horror film score. 
Perplexingly, the K-pop band gets much more screentime in the ad than the actual anti-drug message. 
The whole thing looks a bit like your typical prescription antidepressant commercial: lots of very bright colors, happy-looking people, and promises of a chemical fix to all your suffering, followed by a brief and disorienting clip outlining some of the horrors that might ensue if you actually partake in the drug being advertised. 
(Side effects may include…) 
The Hong Kong CSD removed the video in response to online complaints saying it made drugs look alluring rather than harmful. 
So the agency tried again with another AI-generated anti-drug PSA. 
This new one, however, included an imposing voice confidently declaring something that is definitely not the case in Hong Kong: “Whether you take or sell drugs, you won’t go to jail,” it reportedly said. 
For the second time, on June 27, the Hong Kong CSD removed the video. 
It issued a public apology that same day. 
But the damage already seems to have been done. 
“It was very successful,” one person commented under the “Obsession” video after it had been reposted to YouTube. 
“After watching it, I want to try a few bites of each.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.4%Gizmodo: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.1%Webb Wright: 4.8%Gizmodo: 3.1%Availability Heuristic12.1%This article: 14.2%Webb Wright: 4.1%Gizmodo: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic14.2%This article: 1.5%Webb Wright: 1.7%Gizmodo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.3%Webb Wright: 7.9%Gizmodo: 5.5%Framing Effect14.3%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Webb Wright: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 2.8%Gizmodo: 3.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Webb Wright: 2.7%Gizmodo: 2.1%Pessimism Bias11.1%This article: 47.8%Webb Wright: 9.6%Gizmodo: 7.5%Negativity Bias47.8%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 1.8%Gizmodo: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 1.4%Gizmodo: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%Webb Wright: 1.4%Gizmodo: 1.6%Recency Bias2.4%This article: 2.7%Webb Wright: 1.0%Gizmodo: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.8%Webb Wright: 4.3%Gizmodo: 4.3%Appeal to Authority5.8%This article: 5.5%Webb Wright: 1.6%Gizmodo: 1.4%False Dilemma5.5%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.0%Webb Wright: 4.5%Gizmodo: 5.3%Hasty Generalization8.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.1%Webb Wright: 1.6%Gizmodo: 0.9%Bandwagon3.1%This article: 16.9%Webb Wright: 8.3%Gizmodo: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion16.9%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.1%Webb Wright: 2.1%Gizmodo: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.1%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 1.2%Gizmodo: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 9.0%Webb Wright: 1.8%Gizmodo: 0.3%Composition/Division9.0%This article: 10.6%Webb Wright: 2.2%Gizmodo: 2.0%Anecdotal10.6%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.5%Gizmodo: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.7%Webb Wright: 4.3%Gizmodo: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.7%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.9%Webb Wright: 4.7%Gizmodo: 4.6%Unattributed Quote18.9%This article: 2.4%Webb Wright: 1.6%Gizmodo: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 45.2%Webb Wright: 18.6%Gizmodo: 13.5%Biased Writer Voice45.2%This article: 5.5%Webb Wright: 2.3%Gizmodo: 1.6%Indoctrination5.5%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Webb Wright: 1.9%Gizmodo: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

586 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.1%attributed speech550writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageHong Kong Correctional Services Department (CSD) • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageHong Kong Correctional Services Department (CSD) • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverage
78%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words100% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Biased Writer Voice+34.7 ptsWriter: 43.1%Hong Kong Correctional Services Department (CSD): 77.8%77.8%Unattributed Quote-20.2 ptsWriter: 20.2%Hong Kong Correctional Services Department (CSD): 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.8 ptsWriter: 5.8%Hong Kong Correctional Services Department (CSD): 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Hong Kong Correctional Services Department (CSD): 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.