The Race to Stop AI’s Threats to Democracy ⁠74%

By Reveal⁠78%

7/15/2026, 10:01:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hasty Generalization, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 61.2% saturation with 150 hits. Analysis detected 797 faulty-reasoning hits from 245 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (5,599 of 21,172 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.60% of the article peer group.

OpenAI and its revolutionary chatbot ChatGPT have single-handedly accelerated AI’s boom and threatened to upend much of how we work, create, learn, and communicate in the process. 
But when OpenAI was founded a decade ago, the company’s approach to artificial intelligence wasn’t taken seriously in Silicon Valley. 
Tech journalist Karen Hao has been covering OpenAI’s astounding rise for years and is the author of Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman’s OpenAI . 
She says that while many in Silicon Valley warn of AI’s sci-fi-like threats, the real risks are already here. 
“We are allowing the tech industry to consolidate this extraordinary degree of resources unlike anything ever before,” she tells More To The Story host Al Letson. 
“We thought that they were already powerful during the social media era. 
In the AI era, the amount of resources and the amount of influence and domination that they now have is of a fundamentally different degree.” 
The Center for Investigative Reporting, which produces Mother Jones , Reveal , and More To The Story , is currently suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. 
On this week’s More To The Story , Hao sounds the alarm about the risks to the planet from AI’s growth, examines the Trump administration’s efforts to deregulate the industry, and explains why the version of AI being developed by Silicon Valley could destabilize democracy. 
This episode first aired in October 2025 . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.0%Mother Jones: 4.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.2%Mother Jones: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%Reveal: 4.7%Mother Jones: 3.2%Availability Heuristic11.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 13.1%Reveal: 1.7%Mother Jones: 0.8%Hindsight Bias13.1%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.5%Mother Jones: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%Reveal: 13.7%Mother Jones: 7.2%Framing Effect11.0%This article: 10.6%Reveal: 2.1%Mother Jones: 0.6%Loss Aversion10.6%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.2%Mother Jones: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.8%Reveal: 4.6%Mother Jones: 1.7%Pessimism Bias20.8%This article: 61.2%Reveal: 13.6%Mother Jones: 9.6%Negativity Bias61.2%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.7%Mother Jones: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 2.7%Mother Jones: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.7%Mother Jones: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 18.4%Reveal: 2.5%Mother Jones: 1.1%Recency Bias18.4%This article: 11.4%Reveal: 1.5%Mother Jones: 0.3%Primacy Effect11.4%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.4%Reveal: 2.6%Mother Jones: 3.5%Appeal to Authority11.4%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.0%Mother Jones: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 18.4%Reveal: 2.2%Mother Jones: 1.7%Slippery Slope18.4%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 31.8%Reveal: 7.0%Mother Jones: 4.7%Hasty Generalization31.8%This article: 18.4%Reveal: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.2%Red Herring18.4%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.6%Reveal: 11.2%Mother Jones: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion10.6%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.7%Mother Jones: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.2%Mother Jones: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.8%Reveal: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.5%Burden of Proof7.8%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.2%Reveal: 3.9%Mother Jones: 2.3%Anecdotal8.2%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.0%Reveal: 1.8%Mother Jones: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 3.0%Mother Jones: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.4%Mother Jones: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 32.7%Reveal: 9.3%Mother Jones: 9.3%Biased Writer Voice32.7%This article: 10.6%Reveal: 5.3%Mother Jones: 1.8%Indoctrination10.6%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 4.7%Mother Jones: 4.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 10.9%Mother Jones: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

245 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers44%attributed speech136writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageKaren Hao • 19 words • 0.0% coverageKaren Hao • 26 words • 100.0% coverageKaren Hao • 12 words • 0.0% coverageKaren Hao • 25 words • 0.0% coverageCenter for Investigative Reporting • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Karen Hao

100%flagged-word coverage
82 attributed words75% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-58.8 ptsWriter: 58.8%Karen Hao: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+31.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Karen Hao: 31.7%31.7%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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