The AI Layoff Trap 67%

By Jonathan V. Last50%

7/23/2026, 5:01:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Appeal to Emotion, and Confirmation Bias, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 17.3% saturation with 66 hits. Analysis detected 733 faulty-reasoning hits from 381 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.6% and a BS Rank of 67% (7,285 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.70% of the article peer group.

We’re going to have a fairly technical discussion about economics and AI in a minute, but first I want to give you some candy. 
As part of the America 250 BS, the Trump administration held a quiz bowl–style competition for high school kids about “civics.” 
And they rigged the game. 
One of the semifinalists was a Sikh kid from Connecticut with immigrant parents. 
The judges made clear-cut “mistakes” in grading his answers so that three white kids—one homeschooled, one from a private Catholic school, and one whose dream is to go to Hillsdale—made the finals. 
I know this sounds like crazy talk. 
It’s not. 
NOTUS has the entire story. 
This is America now. 
Heritage Americans and MAGA fans first. 
No deviationism will be permitted. 
1 
On the one hand: This is not a big deal. 
Anyone who has ever watched a $100 Rotary scholarship go to the son of the guy who runs the local chamber of commerce knows this is how things work sometimes. 
On the other hand: The rest of us don’t have to play along and pretend not to see what’s happening. 
Oh, and one last thing in the footnotes. 
2 
There’s a new academic paper making the rounds from a couple of researchers at Wharton. 
It is . . . alarming. 
They try to anticipate effects from the AI disruption and their thesis goes something like this: 
AI will rapidly replace many workers. 
The surge in unemployment will crush overall demand for products and services. 
At which point the companies that replaced workers with AI will suffer. 
This trap is akin to the Prisoner’s Dilemma. 
Overall, businesses would be better off if they cooperated and slowed their adoption of AI. 
But individually, businesses will be harmed if they don’t replace workers as fast as possible. 
Not gonna lie: It’s a pretty grim assessment. 
So let’s look closer. 
Get a 14-day FREE Bulwark+ trial 
I know these paywalls can be annoying but they make it possible for us to do what we do here every day—helping you see around corners. 
I hope you’ll consider giving Bulwark+ a try, FREE for the next two weeks. 
A membership helps keep our work sustainable and includes the best community on the internet. 
We keep each other sane. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.3%Jonathan V. Last: 6.0%The Bulwark: 5.8%Confirmation Bias16.3%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Jonathan V. Last: 4.8%The Bulwark: 2.9%Availability Heuristic7.9%This article: 2.1%Jonathan V. Last: 0.5%The Bulwark: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic2.1%This article: 1.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias1.0%This article: 2.1%Jonathan V. Last: 1.8%The Bulwark: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias2.1%This article: 2.6%Jonathan V. Last: 11.3%The Bulwark: 6.8%Framing Effect2.6%This article: 9.2%Jonathan V. Last: 2.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion9.2%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Jonathan V. Last: 1.5%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect6.8%This article: 6.6%Jonathan V. Last: 3.0%The Bulwark: 1.5%Optimism Bias6.6%This article: 7.6%Jonathan V. Last: 4.1%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias7.6%This article: 15.7%Jonathan V. Last: 11.0%The Bulwark: 11.2%Negativity Bias15.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 1.8%The Bulwark: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Jonathan V. Last: 8.6%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias5.0%This article: 1.6%Jonathan V. Last: 3.1%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 2.3%The Bulwark: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Jonathan V. Last: 1.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.3%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 1.2%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.6%The Bulwark: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 9.2%Jonathan V. Last: 2.0%The Bulwark: 2.2%False Dilemma9.2%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 1.4%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.4%Jonathan V. Last: 9.8%The Bulwark: 8.2%Hasty Generalization8.4%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 1.6%The Bulwark: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 17.1%Jonathan V. Last: 8.6%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion17.1%This article: 0.5%Jonathan V. Last: 2.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question0.5%This article: 3.1%Jonathan V. Last: 3.1%The Bulwark: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.1%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.2%Jonathan V. Last: 0.9%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division4.2%This article: 17.3%Jonathan V. Last: 7.6%The Bulwark: 2.4%Anecdotal17.3%This article: 1.6%Jonathan V. Last: 0.7%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman1.6%This article: 2.1%Jonathan V. Last: 4.7%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.8%Jonathan V. Last: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity1.8%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.0%Jonathan V. Last: 2.4%The Bulwark: 2.2%Unattributed Quote11.0%This article: 8.4%Jonathan V. Last: 1.8%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection8.4%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 17.2%The Bulwark: 15.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 2.9%Jonathan V. Last: 2.2%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination2.9%This article: 0.0%Jonathan V. Last: 5.1%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Jonathan V. Last: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias1.6%This article: 17.3%Jonathan V. Last: 11.1%The Bulwark: 4.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…17.3%

381 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.6%attributed speech375writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageBulwark+ • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bulwark+

100%flagged-word coverage
6 attributed words100% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+98.7 ptsWriter: 1.3%Bulwark+: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +84.0 ptsWriter: 16.0%Bulwark+: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-11.2 ptsWriter: 11.2%Bulwark+: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.5 ptsWriter: 8.5%Bulwark+: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -1.6 ptsWriter: 1.6%Bulwark+: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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