Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

17
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
68% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Min Choi on X

AI is getting scary good... https://t.co/P7ZhkZTlVZ

Posted by Min Choi
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No presented choices or extremes; just a statement.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us-vs-them dynamics, groups, or polarization; neutral amazement at AI.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
Vague positive/negative framing of AI without good-evil binary.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
No suspicious correlation with major events like Trump-Greenland tensions or Syrian clashes in past 72 hours; organic amid ongoing AI demos without priming for hearings.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to propaganda patterns like state-backed deepfake ops; current AI awe posts lack documented psyop techniques.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
AI educator @minchoi shares without promoting specific companies/politicians; no evident beneficiaries or funding ties beyond personal AI advocacy.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims of widespread agreement or 'everyone knows' AI is scary; standalone observation.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No urgency, trends, or astroturfing; low-engagement post amid sporadic AI hype without manufactured momentum.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
Common phrase in diverse X reactions to AI videos, but no verbatim coordination across outlets or inauthentic clustering.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
No arguments or reasoning to critique; purely exclamatory.
Authority Overload 1/5
No cited experts, studies, or authorities.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
No data presented at all.
Framing Techniques 4/5
'Scary good' biases toward threat-admiration duality, evoking unease while praising AI via loaded adjectives.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention of critics or labeling dissenters.
Context Omission 5/5
Omits details on what makes AI 'scary good,' context of the linked video, sources, or evidence; relies entirely on viewer assumption.
Novelty Overuse 2/5
Mild implication of impressive AI progress via ellipsis and link, but no exaggerated 'unprecedented' or 'shocking' claims.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Single use of 'scary' with no repeated emotional triggers or escalating language.
Manufactured Outrage 2/5
No outrage amplified beyond facts; 'scary good' expresses amazement, not disconnected anger.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action, sharing, or response; the post is a casual observation with a link.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
The phrase 'AI is getting scary good' uses 'scary' to blend fear and awe, subtly manipulating emotions around AI's capabilities without overt outrage or guilt.

Identified Techniques

Appeal to fear-prejudice Loaded Language Thought-terminating Cliches Name Calling, Labeling Exaggeration, Minimisation
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else