I can't believe this happened...
Credibility score: 39/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "I can't believe this happened..." and rated it 39/100 for credibility (a BS score of 61/100 — low credibility), on 2026-06-26. Its weakest claim — "Rhetorical question to justify government action — shifts blame." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as straw man. 18 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Claims analyzed
Claiming "Daario" achieved regulatory capture, preventing access to the Frontier model. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
Blaming "Daario" for "regulatory capture" without saying who that is or what they actually did. Very specific, very vague 💀
Claiming GPT 5.6 is out, but only for a select few, leading to disappointment. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Talking about "GPT 5.6 sole preview" like it's a known thing, but OpenAI hasn't announced a 5.6. That's a bold claim with zero receipts 🚩
Rhetorical question to justify government action — shifts blame. — Straw Man (20/100)
Asking 'what were they supposed to do?' as if there were no other options. That's a classic straw man to justify the government's actions. 🎭
Declares a 'negative turning point' for AI industry — dramatic language for a prediction. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Calling it a 'negative turning point' is pure drama, not a verifiable fact. It's a vibe, not a metric 🎭
Claims models are 'incredibly dangerous' and 'only a select few should be using them' while also saying they're always hackable. — Volume Game (45/100)
He's quoting a hypothetical government concern about 'dangerous' models, then immediately undercutting it by saying they're 'always' hackable. The danger is real, but the 'select few' part is the real issue. 🤡
Government told Anthropic to restrict access, so they just turned off the model. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Claims the government 'said' to restrict access to non-US citizens, then Anthropic 'just turned it off' — but no source for this specific government directive. 🕵️♂️
Predicting GPT 5.6 release and calling it 'effectively AI regulation' with no official source. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Calling a limited release 'effectively AI regulation' is a big leap — that's a strong claim for something that's just a company's rollout strategy. 😬
Predicts GPT 5.6 release and limited access, then calls it 'effectively AI regulation.' — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Goes from 'maybe hopefully' to 'effectively AI regulation' real quick. The leap from speculation to certainty is Olympic-level. 🤸♀️
Claims only two companies are at the AI frontier, creating an insurmountable lead for startups. — False Dilemma (20/100)
Paints a picture of an AI duopoly, ignoring the massive open-source community and other major players. It's not just two 🤖
US slowing AI, China not, creating a 'race' narrative 🚩 — Emotional Button (45/100)
Pushes the 'race with China' button hard, making a 'few weeks' delay sound like a national crisis. The urgency is doing heavy lifting here. 🚨
Claims open-source is 'behind' and the rich get richer with locked-up AI 🚩 — False Dilemma (20/100)
Paints a picture where open-source is inherently 'behind' and only a few companies benefit, ignoring collaborative innovation. 🙄
Aaron Levy claims de facto AI regulation exists, leading to government review of models. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Calling it 'de facto' regulation and then immediately saying it's 'not obvious why' it won't be reviewed. Pick a lane, Aaron! 🤡
Claiming hindered monetization will 'completely' affect the US economy and 'entire economy' with no specifics. 🚩 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Went from 'hindered' to 'completely affect the entire economy' real quick. That's a leap of faith, not data. 🤸♀️
Claiming hindered monetization will 'completely' affect the US economy, using loaded language. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Saying 'completely hindered' and 'affect the entire economy' is a bit dramatic without specific numbers or timelines. That's some serious economic doom-scrolling. 📉
Speculates about GPU regulation and power concentration, then states who will control it with certainty. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Goes from 'maybe' to 'I will tell you' about who controls GPUs. That's a leap of faith, not a prediction. 🔮
Questions the AGI's capabilities by comparing it to simpler tasks it allegedly can't do, using a False Equivalence. — False Equivalence (20/100)
Comparing 'curing cancer' to 'sniffing illicit distillation' as if they're on the same difficulty scale for an AGI. That's a wild leap in logic 🤡
Speaker questions AGI's capabilities, highlighting a perceived contradiction. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
He's pointing out the 'cure cancer' claim versus the 'can't stop data theft' reality. The confidence in AGI's power doesn't match its reported vulnerabilities. 🤡
Pushes open source as the solution, then immediately admits it's not as good. The classic 'but maybe one day' cop-out. 🤡 — Volume Game (45/100)
Tells everyone to go support open source, then immediately undercuts it by saying it's not as good. That's a quick pivot. 📉
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →