NYC airport debuts AI-powered hologram 'concierge' to help travelers ⁠49%

By Stephen Sorace⁠0%

5/19/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Halo Effect, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 41.5% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 779 faulty-reasoning hits from 241 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of ⁠49% (10,467 of 20,408 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 51.30% of the article peer group.

New York City's LaGuardia Airport is bringing science fiction to the terminal with the debut of an AI-powered hologram concierge designed to help travelers find gates, lounges and baggage claim through face-to-face conversations. 
The digital assistant, nicknamed "Bridget," was unveiled this week inside Terminal B, where the hologram chats with passengers in real time and helps them navigate the busy area. 
Unlike prerecorded holograms used elsewhere for greetings or ads, Bridget responds to travelers’ questions conversationally, offering directions to gates, baggage claim, lounges and shops. 
The hologram speaks English and Spanish, with more languages planned, and includes accessibility features such as closed captioning and wheelchair-friendly controls. 
Airport officials say the system is designed to support — not replace — human customer service staff, especially during crowded travel periods. 
"Most people think of airports as stressful and confusing environments, but LaGuardia's Terminal B leads the world in changing all that," said David Nussbaum, founder of Proto Hologram, which developed the hologram software. 
Nussbaum said the technology will provide a more personalized experience "in ways that feel natural and intuitive," adding "the future of travel has begun at LaGuardia." 
The hologram currently stands near Terminal B’s food hall, with additional units expected to roll out across the terminal’s concourses. 
LaGuardia’s Terminal B has become known for testing new travel technology as airports increasingly look for ways to speed up navigation and reduce passenger frustration. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.0%Stephen Sorace: 5.8%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 2.0%FoxBusiness: 3.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Stephen Sorace: 5.1%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic10.4%This article: 10.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic10.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 5.7%FoxBusiness: 3.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 26.6%Stephen Sorace: 16.2%FoxBusiness: 13.0%Framing Effect26.6%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 10.4%Stephen Sorace: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 41.5%Stephen Sorace: 4.1%FoxBusiness: 8.9%Optimism Bias41.5%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 1.7%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Stephen Sorace: 9.3%FoxBusiness: 7.8%Negativity Bias13.7%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 3.6%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 2.9%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 2.4%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 25.3%Stephen Sorace: 2.5%FoxBusiness: 3.9%Halo Effect25.3%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 19.9%Stephen Sorace: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias19.9%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 2.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.8%Stephen Sorace: 8.8%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority22.8%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 1.6%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 23.7%Stephen Sorace: 5.2%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization23.7%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 8.3%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 10.8%Stephen Sorace: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question10.8%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 2.1%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 10.4%Stephen Sorace: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division10.4%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 1.6%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 20.7%Stephen Sorace: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote20.7%This article: 13.7%Stephen Sorace: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection13.7%This article: 39.8%Stephen Sorace: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice39.8%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Sorace: 2.5%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Stephen Sorace: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…13.7%

241 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker24%attributed speech182writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Nussbaum • 33 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Nussbaum • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

David Nussbaum

100%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Quote-first Misdirection+55.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%David Nussbaum: 55.9%55.9%Biased Writer Voice+5.6 ptsWriter: 38.5%David Nussbaum: 44.1%44.1%Unattributed Quote-27.5 ptsWriter: 27.5%David Nussbaum: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -18.1 ptsWriter: 18.1%David Nussbaum: 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.