The Race to Stop AI’s Threats to Democracy 42%

By Reveal85%

7/15/2026, 10:01:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Emotion, with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 36.3% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 398 faulty-reasoning hits from 245 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.3% and a BS Rank of 42% (9,283 of 15,985 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.10% of the article peer group.

OpenAI and its revolutionary chatbot ChatGPT have single-handedly accelerated AI’s boom and threatened to upend much of how we work, create, learn, and communicate in the process. 
But when OpenAI was founded a decade ago, the company’s approach to artificial intelligence wasn’t taken seriously in Silicon Valley. 
Tech journalist Karen Hao has been covering OpenAI’s astounding rise for years and is the author of Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman’s OpenAI . 
She says that while many in Silicon Valley warn of AI’s sci-fi-like threats, the real risks are already here. 
“We are allowing the tech industry to consolidate this extraordinary degree of resources unlike anything ever before,” she tells More To The Story host Al Letson. 
“We thought that they were already powerful during the social media era. 
In the AI era, the amount of resources and the amount of influence and domination that they now have is of a fundamentally different degree.” 
The Center for Investigative Reporting, which produces Mother Jones , Reveal , and More To The Story , is currently suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. 
On this week’s More To The Story , Hao sounds the alarm about the risks to the planet from AI’s growth, examines the Trump administration’s efforts to deregulate the industry, and explains why the version of AI being developed by Silicon Valley could destabilize democracy. 
This episode first aired in October 2025 . 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
8.2%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
3.3%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
36.3%
Negativity Bias
32.7%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
11%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
4.9%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
7.8%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
21.6%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
18.4%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
18.4%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

245 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.