He’s king of the AI boom. Why do former colleagues say he can’t be trusted? ⁠72%

By Gerrit De Vynck⁠0%

5/16/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Burden of Proof, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 43.8% saturation with 39 hits. Analysis detected 254 faulty-reasoning hits from 89 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠72% (6,052 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.40% of the article peer group.

OAKLAND, Calif. — “Do you always tell the truth?” 
an attorney for Tesla CEO Elon Musk gruffly asked Sam Altman, CEO of ChatGPT maker OpenAI, in federal court this week. 
“I believe I’m a truthful person,” Altman replied. 
The attorney pivoted, asking him if people Altman did business with would ever think he misled them. 
“I can’t answer that for other people,” said Altman — but several had already had their say in court. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.1%Gerrit De Vynck: 8.0%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias19.1%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Gerrit De Vynck: 7.0%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic10.1%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 2.5%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Gerrit De Vynck: 27.9%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect6.7%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 29.2%Gerrit De Vynck: 17.0%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias29.2%This article: 9.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 5.5%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias9.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 3.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Gerrit De Vynck: 18.7%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect6.7%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 5.6%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 4.5%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Gerrit De Vynck: 1.4%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem10.1%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.3%Gerrit De Vynck: 24.8%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority21.3%This article: 19.1%Gerrit De Vynck: 2.7%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma19.1%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.1%Gerrit De Vynck: 7.0%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization19.1%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 3.4%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 11.2%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 23.6%Gerrit De Vynck: 3.3%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof23.6%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.1%Gerrit De Vynck: 1.4%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal10.1%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.1%Gerrit De Vynck: 3.7%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.1%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 43.8%Gerrit De Vynck: 11.7%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote43.8%This article: 10.1%Gerrit De Vynck: 9.8%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection10.1%This article: 28.1%Gerrit De Vynck: 27.9%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice28.1%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gerrit De Vynck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

89 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker30%attributed speech62writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageSam Altman • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSam Altman • 19 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sam Altman

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice+60.7 ptsWriter: 9.7%Sam Altman: 70.4%70.4%Unattributed Quote-62.9 ptsWriter: 62.9%Sam Altman: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-14.5 ptsWriter: 14.5%Sam Altman: 0.0%0.0%

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.