Futurism88%

SpaceX Eager to Support the Pentagon’s Lethal AI Models 72%

By Frank Landymore67%

7/17/2026, 9:50:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 53.7% saturation with 264 hits. Analysis detected 1,273 faulty-reasoning hits from 492 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.4% and a BS Rank of 72% (6,202 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.70% of the article peer group.

After years of being engaged, it looks like SpaceX and the Pentagon are finally ready to send out save-the-dates. 
On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Elon Musk’s formerly-just-rockets company is now in talks with the Department of Defense over providing the military access to its data-center capacity for running AI models, tying the knot on their already close relationship. 
People familiar with the matter told the newspaper that the arrangement could cost the Pentagon billions of dollars, but stressed the talks are ongoing and could fall apart. 
Computing power is a precious commodity during this ever-raging AI boom, and SpaceX has it in spades. 
Musk has rapidly built data centers in Memphis, Tennessee and a lot of that capacity hasn’t been tapped into, with Bloomberg reporting that his AI startup xAI is only using 11 percent of its total computing power. 
Selling this excess compute would help generate the company some much needed revenue, even if it directly benefits its rivals. 
SpaceX has struggled to be profitable, losing $5 billion last year. 
And xAI, which was folded into SpaceX before its IPO last month, burned through $6.4 billion over the same period. 
All the while, Musk has struggled to sell his Grok chatbot to businesses , as its capabilities lag behind leaders like Anthropic and ChatGPT. 
The real story, though, is the deepening ties between Musk’s business empire and the Pentagon, which goes way back. 
SpaceX has worked with the military to deploy a secretive network of spy satellites , for example, and also had a small contract to experiment with building a rocket that could deliver military cargo across the globe . 
Those collaborations have gotten way bigger in the past year. 
In May, it won a $2.29 billion Space Force contract to build a network of satellites that could function as a military internet service, connecting weapon systems across the globe. 
That same month, it was awarded an even larger $4.16 billion contract to provide the technology to build a system that can track missiles and aircraft from orbit. 
To be clear, Musk’s companies are far from the only tech leaders to be getting in bed with the Pentagon. 
Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Oracle all have similar deals for providing cloud computing capacity to the military, as well as for providing their AI models, the WSJ noted. 
But it’s a particularly hypocritical road to be going down for Musk. 
When Musk cut off Starlink satellite access to the Ukrainian forces in 2023, he reasoned that he didn’t want SpaceX to be “explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation.” 
Fast forward to this June, when a Pentagon official bragged that the military used Grok to fire 2,000 missiles at Iran during Operation Epic Fury, sparking a war that killed thousands of civilians in the country. 
More on SpaceX: SpaceX’s Shares Tank After Starship Fails to Launch 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.3%Frank Landymore: 4.4%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.9%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Frank Landymore: 5.8%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 4.9%Frank Landymore: 1.5%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic4.9%This article: 7.3%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.9%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.4%Frank Landymore: 10.6%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect22.4%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.5%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.5%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect4.1%This article: 3.5%Frank Landymore: 1.4%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.9%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 32.7%Frank Landymore: 20.9%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias32.7%This article: 4.1%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.6%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 6.7%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias6.7%This article: 4.1%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias4.1%This article: 5.7%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.8%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.9%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.1%Frank Landymore: 2.1%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem2.4%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 5.5%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.7%Frank Landymore: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma5.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.3%Frank Landymore: 9.7%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization8.3%This article: 3.9%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring3.9%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.8%Frank Landymore: 8.2%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion1.8%This article: 6.3%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question6.3%This article: 7.3%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.3%This article: 10.8%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque10.8%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.1%Frank Landymore: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division4.1%This article: 2.0%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal2.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 3.2%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 26.2%Frank Landymore: 4.3%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote26.2%This article: 7.3%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection7.3%This article: 53.7%Frank Landymore: 17.6%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice53.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

492 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers28%attributed speech352writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageBloomberg • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageElon Musk • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Elon Musk

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words24% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+46.3 ptsWriter: 53.7%Elon Musk: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-18.2 ptsWriter: 18.2%Elon Musk: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.2 ptsWriter: 10.2%Elon Musk: 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.