KQED⁠61%

Three Recent Graduates Share Their Thoughts on AI ⁠56%

By Alan Montecillo⁠0% Jessica Kariisa⁠0% Ericka Cruz Guevarra⁠0%

6/1/2026, 10:00:44 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Representativeness Heuristic, and Pessimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 46.6% saturation with 55 hits. Analysis detected 305 faulty-reasoning hits from 118 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (9,798 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.20% of the article peer group.

This graduation season has felt different. 
Commencement speakers across the country are getting booed for promoting AI in their speeches – and the videos have gone viral. 
Recent college graduates were in school when ChatGPT first launched in late 2022, and many are worried about how AI will affect their future job prospects and society at large. 
Today, we hear from three recent graduates in the Bay Area about their thoughts on AI, how it affected their education, and how they feel about their futures. 
Some members of the KQED podcast team are represented by The Screen Actors Guild, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, San Francisco-Northern California Local. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.7%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.9%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.8%Alan Montecillo: 2.7%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic17.8%This article: 25.4%Alan Montecillo: 1.4%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic25.4%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 28.8%Alan Montecillo: 8.5%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect28.8%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.6%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.6%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 1.8%CalMatters: 3.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 25.4%Alan Montecillo: 3.0%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias25.4%This article: 22.9%Alan Montecillo: 8.1%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias22.9%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.2%CalMatters: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 2.3%CalMatters: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.7%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 4.0%CalMatters: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.8%Alan Montecillo: 2.5%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias17.8%This article: 5.1%Alan Montecillo: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect5.1%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.6%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 1.6%CalMatters: 3.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 3.3%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 25.4%Alan Montecillo: 3.6%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization25.4%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 17.8%Alan Montecillo: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon17.8%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 2.6%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.5%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.8%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.6%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 1.6%CalMatters: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.5%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 25.4%Alan Montecillo: 4.0%CalMatters: 0.8%Unattributed Quote25.4%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 1.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 46.6%Alan Montecillo: 6.3%CalMatters: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice46.6%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 1.0%CalMatters: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.9%CalMatters: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alan Montecillo: 1.4%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

118 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.