404 Media⁠48%

Scammers Sell Seeds for Exotic AI-Generated Flowers That Don’t Exist ⁠83%

By Emanuel Maiberg⁠0%

6/30/2026, 6:48:27 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Status Quo Bias, and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 90 hits. Analysis detected 653 faulty-reasoning hits from 90 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of ⁠83% (3,720 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.00% of the article peer group.

Scammers are selling seeds for plants that don’t exist with spectacular, AI-generated images of technicolor leaves that bloom in the shape of birds, butterflies, and cat heads. 
This type of fake seeds scam predates widespread access to AI image generators, but the ability to easily create these images has made the scam more widespread, especially on big online retailers like eBay, Amazon, and Etsy, which are unable to keep up with the flood of scam plant sellers on their platforms. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 3.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 30.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 22.2%404 Media: 3.8%Availability Heuristic30.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Emanuel Maiberg: 27.8%404 Media: 5.6%Framing Effect11.1%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 58.9%Emanuel Maiberg: 14.7%404 Media: 0.6%Status Quo Bias58.9%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 60.3%404 Media: 11.5%Negativity Bias100.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 30.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 7.5%404 Media: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error30.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 58.9%Emanuel Maiberg: 29.4%404 Media: 1.0%Recency Bias58.9%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 3.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 58.9%Emanuel Maiberg: 14.7%404 Media: 1.2%Slippery Slope58.9%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 41.1%Emanuel Maiberg: 32.5%404 Media: 7.8%Hasty Generalization41.1%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 4.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 58.9%Emanuel Maiberg: 44.2%404 Media: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)58.9%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 58.9%Emanuel Maiberg: 14.7%404 Media: 0.5%Burden of Proof58.9%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 30.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 7.5%404 Media: 2.9%Anecdotal30.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 58.9%Emanuel Maiberg: 14.7%404 Media: 2.6%Unattributed Quote58.9%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 100.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 50.0%404 Media: 11.5%Biased Writer Voice100.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 30.0%Emanuel Maiberg: 7.5%404 Media: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…30.0%

90 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.