We Are Living in a ‘ChatGPT Flyer Pandemic’ 77%

By Jason Koebler45%

7/8/2026, 2:05:42 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Representativeness Heuristic, and Availability Heuristic, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 48.1% saturation with 163 hits. Analysis detected 1,061 faulty-reasoning hits from 339 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.1% and a BS Rank of 77% (5,214 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 76.20% of the article peer group.

I am not sure, exactly, how many ChatGPT signs, flyers, or advertisements I had seen without noticing. 
But I do remember that once I began noticing them, I saw them everywhere. 
A few blocks from my house, on a display easel: “Break Free Surfing California: SURF LESSONS VENICE BEACH.” 
On Instagram, a going out of business closeout sale for a skateboard shop. 
On invites to parties from friends, Fourth of July barbecues being thrown by bars, concert posters. 
I saw ChatGPT-designed advertisements for drug deliveries in Berlin, World Cup parties in France, junk hauling services in South Carolina, and fundraisers in Texas. 
The scourge of low effort, stylistically indistinguishable AI-generated signs and flyers have flooded both social media and, increasingly, posters, billboards, and signs in real life: “So ain’t nobody gonna address this ChatGPT flyer pandemic we’re in?” 
one viral post on Threads read last month . 
“YOUR FLYER LOOKS LIKE GARBAGE,” a viral ChatGPT-generated parody of the genre posted by Jill Oliver reads. 
“Hey if this is your flyer, I’m not going, I’m not donating, I’m not sharing. 
Don’t ask me.” 
The “ChatGPT flyer pandemic” has become a big topic of conversation among graphic designers, musicians, bars, and small business owners who care about design and showing that they’ve put effort into something. 
Once you notice a ChatGPT flyer, you will see them everywhere if you keep your eyes open. 
The art of the format is basically big, flashy bright text on dark background and an AI-generated or AI-altered image. 
There is almost universally a little box of generic icons in a bulleted list vaguely tied to whatever event or business it’s advertising, lines coming off of the text to emphasize whatever it’s saying, and either bolded words or underlined text and tons of arrows and checkmarks haphazardly strewn throughout. 
It is easier to just show you what they look like than describe it, because they all look basically the same: 
From a post by Facebook user Zakkai Rayne Morningstar 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.1%Jason Koebler: 4.2%404 Media: 3.5%Confirmation Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.9%404 Media: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 24.8%Jason Koebler: 4.3%404 Media: 3.8%Availability Heuristic24.8%This article: 26.8%Jason Koebler: 2.4%404 Media: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic26.8%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.5%404 Media: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%Jason Koebler: 2.5%404 Media: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias14.7%This article: 7.4%Jason Koebler: 4.6%404 Media: 5.6%Framing Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.3%404 Media: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.5%404 Media: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.3%404 Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 1.2%404 Media: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 1.1%404 Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.4%Jason Koebler: 13.1%404 Media: 11.5%Negativity Bias22.4%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 1.5%404 Media: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.8%404 Media: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Jason Koebler: 0.7%404 Media: 0.8%In-Group Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.3%404 Media: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.7%404 Media: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.3%404 Media: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.8%Jason Koebler: 0.6%404 Media: 1.0%Recency Bias6.8%This article: 4.7%Jason Koebler: 0.2%404 Media: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.2%404 Media: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.4%404 Media: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.4%Jason Koebler: 2.1%404 Media: 3.3%Appeal to Authority9.4%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 1.2%404 Media: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 10.6%Jason Koebler: 0.4%404 Media: 1.2%Slippery Slope10.6%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.3%404 Media: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 48.1%Jason Koebler: 10.1%404 Media: 7.8%Hasty Generalization48.1%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.1%404 Media: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 22.7%Jason Koebler: 0.7%404 Media: 0.7%Bandwagon22.7%This article: 12.7%Jason Koebler: 2.9%404 Media: 4.8%Appeal to Emotion12.7%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.6%404 Media: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 1.6%404 Media: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.1%404 Media: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.6%404 Media: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.2%404 Media: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.3%404 Media: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 38.6%Jason Koebler: 4.2%404 Media: 2.9%Anecdotal38.6%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.1%404 Media: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.7%Jason Koebler: 1.5%404 Media: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.7%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.1%404 Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.1%404 Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.7%Jason Koebler: 2.2%404 Media: 2.6%Unattributed Quote17.7%This article: 5.0%Jason Koebler: 1.9%404 Media: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection5.0%This article: 4.1%Jason Koebler: 12.2%404 Media: 11.5%Biased Writer Voice4.1%This article: 5.0%Jason Koebler: 1.6%404 Media: 1.5%Indoctrination5.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.5%404 Media: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 4.2%404 Media: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

339 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers13%attributed speech295writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageJill Oliver • 17 words • 100.0% coverageJill Oliver • 15 words • 100.0% coverageJill Oliver • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageZakkai Rayne Morningstar • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jill Oliver

100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words80% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Quote-first Misdirection+48.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jill Oliver: 48.6%48.6%Unattributed Quote+27.6 ptsWriter: 15.3%Jill Oliver: 42.9%42.9%Indoctrination-5.8 ptsWriter: 5.8%Jill Oliver: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%Jill Oliver: 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.