Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

18
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
69% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content

Source preview not available for this content.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary choices; explores paths like games for training without extremes.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us-vs-them; inclusive 'Manhattan project... to solve AI' and global summits.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
Balanced founder struggles to triumphs without stark good-evil; notes risks like military use.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Organic release amid viral 300M+ YouTube views for 'The Thinking Game' documentary and Hassabis Davos AGI talks; no suspicious ties to past 72-hour events like conflicts or MLK Day, nor priming for non-AI hearings.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to propaganda playbooks; searches show AI disinfo on deepfakes, not matching this factual DeepMind origin story.
Financial/Political Gain 2/5
Spotlights Google DeepMind success with early Thiel/Musk backing but no overt promotion; genuine history benefits Alphabet broadly without specific actors or ops.
Bandwagon Effect 2/5
Mentions collective excitement like 'full of other dreamers' but no 'everyone agrees' pressure; highlights individual pioneers.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 2/5
Viral doc views amid Davos AGI buzz but no astroturfing/bots; gradual historical narrative without urgency for opinion change.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Unique doc with organic X/WSJ coverage; lacks verbatim phrases or clustered amplification across outlets.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
Mostly chronological narrative; minor appeals to excitement but sound reasoning on RL breakthroughs.
Authority Overload 2/5
Quotes experts like Hassabis/Legg but contextualized as founders; no questionable overload.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
Highlights successes like AlphaGo's Move 37 but notes early failures like Pong struggles.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Positive bias in 'bigger than the internet... advent of electricity or fire'; heroic founder arcs.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
Acknowledges skeptics like 'no one in academia would be supportive' without labeling negatively.
Context Omission 3/5
Omits post-acquisition ethics debates, Google integration tensions, and full military AI concerns truncated at end.
Novelty Overuse 3/5
'Unprecedented' feats repeated like 'no one had ever combined those two things together at scale,' 'something completely new,' and 'holy grail of artificial intelligence'; emphasizes 'first ever' milestones excessively.
Emotional Repetition 2/5
Excitement echoed in phrases like 'really exciting,' 'huge huge breakthrough,' and 'magical' but not hammered relentlessly; focuses more on narrative progression.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage language; portrays challenges like funding struggles factually without exaggeration or disconnected anger.
Urgent Action Demands 2/5
Hints of time pressure such as 'there isn't a lot of time. Life's very short' and 'there's no time to waste' but no direct demands for viewer action.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
Mild excitement around breakthroughs like 'the first time anyone had done this end-to-end learning' but no strong fear, outrage, or guilt; occasional concern like 'We don't know how this is all going to shake out' lacks intensity.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Doubt Repetition Exaggeration, Minimisation
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else