WIRED⁠16%

Bernie Sanders Is Not Going To Stop Talking About the Risks of AI ⁠96%

By Condé Nast⁠0%

7/1/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Primacy Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 84.1% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 301 faulty-reasoning hits from 69 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 93.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠96% (904 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 95.90% of the article peer group.

US senator Bernie Sanders tells WIRED’s global editorial director Katie Drummond how a meeting with Geoffrey Hinton, the man known as the “Godfather of AI,” convinced him that AI was what he now describes as “the most consequential, transformational technology in the history of humanity.” 
Subscribe to or follow "Uncanny Valley" wherever you get your podcasts. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.9%WIRED: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.2%WIRED: 2.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.8%WIRED: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.5%WIRED: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Condé Nast: 3.4%WIRED: 4.3%Framing Effect18.8%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.3%WIRED: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Condé Nast: 1.2%WIRED: 1.4%Pessimism Bias18.8%This article: 18.8%Condé Nast: 4.9%WIRED: 5.9%Negativity Bias18.8%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.5%WIRED: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.7%WIRED: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 2.3%WIRED: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 65.2%Condé Nast: 1.5%WIRED: 1.9%Halo Effect65.2%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.7%WIRED: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 65.2%Condé Nast: 0.3%WIRED: 0.3%Primacy Effect65.2%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.5%WIRED: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 65.2%Condé Nast: 2.2%WIRED: 3.2%Appeal to Authority65.2%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.2%WIRED: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.5%WIRED: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 5.6%WIRED: 4.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.6%WIRED: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 2.6%WIRED: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.3%WIRED: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.7%WIRED: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 2.1%WIRED: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 65.2%Condé Nast: 1.6%WIRED: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)65.2%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.2%WIRED: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.2%WIRED: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.4%WIRED: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.6%WIRED: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 84.1%Condé Nast: 2.3%WIRED: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice84.1%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.7%WIRED: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 18.8%Condé Nast: 0.9%WIRED: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias18.8%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 15.9%Condé Nast: 2.7%WIRED: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…15.9%

69 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.