How the monitored publications were assessed
Discourse valence across every scored item: what the sampled sources published and how independent models read it. It is not a measure of public opinion, not a measure of the state of the world, and article volume is not agreement.
This line is the mean of every item scored on each day. It deliberately ignores the reading filter, because a daily mean of only the strongly adverse items would move with how many were filtered out rather than with the discourse.
12 items read as strongly adverse
- When AI is subject to less regulation than your fridge, something is startlingly wrong | Richard Hermer
- Auditing AI-Washing in German Startups: A Mixed-Methods Study of Marketing Claims and Perceptions
- Who Can Say No? Control, Accountability and the Pace of Frontier AI
- Big Tech claims voters’ AI backlash is “anti-Trump” not “anti-tech”
- LLM Recommenders Produce Demographic Inequality Through Content Preferences
- AI and the climate crisis pose existential risks. The law offers a way to reduce them | Robert Reich
- AI ‘deepfakes’ give US political attack ads a new twist
- ChatGPT as a Surveillance Assistant? An Exploratory Case Study of AI-Assisted Surveillance Risks
- Water-Energy-Data nexus reveals sustainability gaps and priorities for AI infrastructure
- AI-driven disinformation running rampant on social media before US midterms, experts warn
- Automated Disinformation and Malicious AI Swarms: Risks for Democracy and Development in Africa
- AI and The Enclosure of the Scientific Commons
Across the whole window
The two tables below describe every item in the last 30 days under governance. They are deliberately not narrowed by the reading filter (currently strongly adverse), because a mean taken only over items already selected for their score would just restate the filter.
By topic
| Topic | Branch | Items | Mean | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Existential and catastrophic risk | risk | 568 | -42 | |
| Governance and regulation | structural | 459 | -31 | |
| Concentration of power | risk | 451 | -36 | |
| Loss of control and alignment | risk | 337 | -49 | |
| Human agency and epistemics | risk | 166 | -26 | |
| Cyber capability | risk | 165 | -44 | |
| Evaluation and measurement | structural | 159 | -19 | |
| Scaling and architecture | structural | 137 | -16 | |
| AGI and timelines | structural | 132 | -29 | |
| Synthetic media and manipulation | risk | 104 | -44 | |
| Employment and displacement | risk | 62 | -31 | |
| Medicine and health | benefit | 43 | -14 | |
| Scientific acceleration | benefit | 42 | -4 | |
| Education and access to expertise | benefit | 29 | -17 | |
| Biological and chemical uplift | risk | 26 | -25 | |
| Climate and energy | structural | 20 | -33 | |
| Compute and infrastructure | structural | 18 | -8 | |
| Productivity and growth | benefit | 6 | -3 | |
| Abundance and material wellbeing | benefit | 5 | -1 | |
| Hype and disillusionment | structural | 5 | -45 |
By source
A source's mean says how the items it published were read. It is not a rating of the source.
| Source | Kind | Tier | Items | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Guardian: Artificial Intelligence | news | 1 | 241 | -52 |
| arXiv cs.CY (Computers and Society) | academic | 1 | 217 | -24 |
| Financial Times: Artificial Intelligence | news | 1 | 112 | -40 |
| arXiv cs.AI | academic | 1 | 99 | -15 |
| The New York Times: Technology | news | 1 | 60 | -36 |
| Ars Technica: AI | news | 1 | 59 | -51 |
| MIT Technology Review: AI | news | 1 | 34 | -42 |
| Nature | academic | 1 | 31 | -25 |
| BBC News: Technology | news | 1 | 29 | -35 |
| OpenAI | lab | 1 | 24 | -8 |
| arXiv cs.LG (Machine Learning) | academic | 1 | 24 | -16 |
| IEEE Spectrum: AI | news | 1 | 19 | -19 |
| The Economist: Science and Technology | news | 1 | 10 | -37 |
| CSET, Georgetown | government | 1 | 9 | -37 |
| Microsoft Research | lab | 1 | 8 | 0 |
| Google DeepMind | lab | 1 | 6 | -4 |
| Google AI Blog | lab | 1 | 2 | -9 |