404 Media⁠49%

Podcast: The AI Tokenpocalypse Is Here ⁠87%

By Joseph Cox⁠67%

7/1/2026, 8:40:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 45.2% saturation with 99 hits. Analysis detected 446 faulty-reasoning hits from 219 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (2,770 of 21,147 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.90% of the article peer group.

We start this week with Joseph’s story about the Tokenpocalypse, which is companies scrambling to stop spending so much on AI after providers started charging per AI token. 
After the break, Joseph and Emanuel tell us about the ways companies are trying to do this, including using a tool to make their LLMs talk like cavemen. 
In the subscribers-only section, Emanuel explains how entirely fake AI-generated flowers are all over eBay, Etsy, and Amazon. 
Listen to the weekly podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube. 
Become a paid subscriber for access to this episode's bonus content and to power our journalism. 
If you become a paid subscriber, check your inbox for an email from our podcast host Transistor for a link to the subscribers-only version! 
You can also add that subscribers feed to your podcast app of choice and never miss an episode that way. 
The email should also contain the subscribers-only unlisted YouTube link for the extended video version too. 
It will also be in the show notes in your podcast player. 
* ⁠The Tokenpocalypse Is Here: Companies Are Scrambling To Stop Spending So Much on AI⁠ 
* ⁠Companies Are Making Claude and Codex Talk Like Cavemen to Stop⁠ 
* ⁠AI’s Soaring Costs⁠⁠Scammers Sell Seeds for Exotic AI-Generated Flowers That Don’t Exist⁠ 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.3%404 Media: 3.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.9%404 Media: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.3%Joseph Cox: 5.7%404 Media: 3.9%Availability Heuristic18.3%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.8%404 Media: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.4%404 Media: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.6%404 Media: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%Joseph Cox: 13.2%404 Media: 5.6%Framing Effect15.5%This article: 7.3%Joseph Cox: 1.0%404 Media: 0.4%Loss Aversion7.3%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.5%404 Media: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.1%404 Media: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.1%Joseph Cox: 1.0%404 Media: 2.7%Optimism Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 3.5%404 Media: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.7%Joseph Cox: 20.0%404 Media: 11.6%Negativity Bias23.7%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.0%404 Media: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.4%404 Media: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.8%404 Media: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.9%404 Media: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.7%404 Media: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.7%404 Media: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.2%404 Media: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.5%404 Media: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.1%404 Media: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 4.0%404 Media: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.4%404 Media: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.9%404 Media: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.2%Joseph Cox: 9.5%404 Media: 8.0%Hasty Generalization14.2%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.7%404 Media: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.1%404 Media: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 6.3%404 Media: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.2%404 Media: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.8%Joseph Cox: 1.8%404 Media: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.8%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.7%404 Media: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.3%404 Media: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.2%404 Media: 2.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.2%Joseph Cox: 4.6%404 Media: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.2%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.2%Joseph Cox: 4.8%404 Media: 2.7%Unattributed Quote8.2%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.7%404 Media: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 33.8%Joseph Cox: 9.8%404 Media: 11.7%Biased Writer Voice33.8%This article: 7.3%Joseph Cox: 2.2%404 Media: 1.5%Indoctrination7.3%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.5%404 Media: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.2%404 Media: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 45.2%Joseph Cox: 7.7%404 Media: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…45.2%

219 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.