Beware what you tell your AI chatbot. It’s not a shrink – it’s a snitch ⁠82%

By Arwa Mahdawi⁠0%

5/13/2026, 10:00:07 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 51.7% saturation with 246 hits. Analysis detected 1,736 faulty-reasoning hits from 476 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74% and a BS Rank of ⁠82% (3,821 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.00% of the article peer group.

The hottest new read of 2026 may well be The Secret Diary of Greg Brockman, Aged 38¾. 
It’s got everything: feuding billionaires, scheming CEOs and a perhaps somewhat unreliable narrator. 
You won’t find it in the library, but you can watch Brockman, a co-founder and president of OpenAI, being forced to read the juiciest bits out loud in court. 
Before you ask ChatGPT to explain, here’s the backstory: Elon Musk is in a legal battle with Brockman and the OpenAI CEO, Sam Altman. 
Musk, a former board member of OpenAI, is accusing the men of violating the AI firm’s founding agreement by turning it into a for-profit entity. 
Meanwhile, Altman et al are arguing Musk is just upset he’s not in control of the company and wants to bring down his competition. 
Helpfully for Musk, Brockman kept a diary during the company’s founding years; this has become central to the case. 
In one heavily cited extract, Brockman writes: “Financially what will take me to $1B?” 
Another scrutinised passage: “It’d be wrong to steal the non-profit from [Musk]. to convert to a b-corp without him. that’d be pretty morally bankrupt. and he’s really not an idiot.” 
(He may have been lusting after billions, but his sentence structure suggests Brockman is ambivalent about capitalism – or at least capitals.) 
Look, I’m not an expert in crime management, but I’m pretty sure there are certain thoughts you shouldn’t share with Dear Diary. 
Even Brockman’s tech bro peers are aghast at his journal-maxxing. 
“I love the guy, but what … is he thinking?” 
David Friedberg, a co-host of the All-In podcast, said on a recent episode. 
“You’re just sitting here at home, like, let me write about the crime I’m committing … and by the way, let me never delete it.” 
Alleged crime, David, alleged. 
Not a lot of people are keeping journals laying out potentially problematic corporate manoeuvres. 
However, millions of people are using tools such as ChatGPT as a sort of therapist or digital confession box; a place to share private or half-formed thoughts. 
“Within the next decade,” one lawyer told Axios, “the diary equivalent will be standard discovery in every major executive litigation in the country.” 
What does this mean? 
It means you shouldn’t trust a chatbot with your secrets because, as a number of recent cases demonstrate (including one where a former NFL player allegedly asked ChatGPT for help after he killed his girlfriend), conversations with AI are admissible in court. 
Even if you don’t expect any legal trouble, you should be wary about sharing your sensitive information: most chatbot conversations are not private, and may be retained indefinitely and shared with other humans. 
Your AI chatbot is not a shrink – it’s a snitch. 
Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.3%Arwa Mahdawi: 4.1%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.1%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 29.2%Arwa Mahdawi: 3.4%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic29.2%This article: 5.7%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.2%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic5.7%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.3%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.5%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias9.2%This article: 13.2%Arwa Mahdawi: 10.3%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect13.2%This article: 1.5%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion1.5%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.0%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.2%Arwa Mahdawi: 2.9%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias17.2%This article: 51.7%Arwa Mahdawi: 16.6%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias51.7%This article: 4.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.4%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias4.0%This article: 5.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error5.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.0%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 2.2%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.4%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.7%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.1%Recency Bias13.7%This article: 5.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect5.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 3.4%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem5.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.5%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.7%Arwa Mahdawi: 5.2%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority13.7%This article: 4.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 2.4%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma4.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 2.7%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 23.9%Arwa Mahdawi: 9.5%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization23.9%This article: 5.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.9%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring5.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.1%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.3%Arwa Mahdawi: 11.0%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion14.3%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.5%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 4.1%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 20.4%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.4%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof20.4%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 18.9%Arwa Mahdawi: 2.9%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal18.9%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.5%Arwa Mahdawi: 2.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.5%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.9%Arwa Mahdawi: 3.8%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote9.9%This article: 12.4%Arwa Mahdawi: 2.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection12.4%This article: 47.7%Arwa Mahdawi: 20.7%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice47.7%This article: 22.3%Arwa Mahdawi: 5.7%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination22.3%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 5.5%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.4%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

476 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers22%attributed speech369writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageElon Musk • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageGreg Brockman • 14 words • 100.0% coverageGreg Brockman • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Friedberg • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Friedberg • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

David Friedberg

66%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words36% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice+11.0 ptsWriter: 54.7%David Friedberg: 65.8%65.8%Indoctrination-28.7 ptsWriter: 28.7%David Friedberg: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.9 ptsWriter: 8.9%David Friedberg: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.9 ptsWriter: 7.9%David Friedberg: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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