Query
Find articles
Pick a keyword, optionally a second one to combine it with (and, or, either but not both, or but not), then narrow the articles down by text, source and time range. Keywords update the results right away; filters apply with their button.
Query
How they overlap
Of the articles on each keyword in the last 7 days, with the same text and sources, how many also mention the other. Per lean: the share of its outlets' articles on Bill Gates that mention AI safety.
50.0% of the 2 articles on Bill Gates also mention AI safety, as do 5.9% of the 17 articles on AI safety.
- Left-leaningno article on Bill Gates
- –
- Least biasedno article on Bill Gates
- –
- Right-leaning1 of 2 articles
- 50.0%
Who picked it up when
It was already in the news on Oct 21, when this period starts, so who reported it first is not shown. No left-leaning outlet mentioned it. No least biased outlet mentioned it.
One row per source with a matching article, from the most left-leaning on top: a dot for each article, on a bar for each stretch of its coverage (a pause of more than 24 hours starts a new one). Hover or tap a dot for the headline, click it to read the article.
Source lean:leftcenterright
Source leans by Media Bias/Fact Check.
Results
1 article mentions Bill Gates and AI safety in the last 7 days (Oct 21 to Oct 27).
| Article | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The Free Press | AI Could Bring Back the Dark AgesThe Free Press The debate over AI is framed as regulation versus free markets. But the real question is whether elected governments can retain control over technologies that threaten civilization itself, writes Elliot Ackerman. Over the past several months, as artificial intelligence and its potentially catastrophic effects on society have taken center stage, discussion around the technology has broken down along a familiar framework in American politics, dividing into two camps: pro-regulation versus pro–free market. On the one hand, you have researchers like David Robinson, a senior safety leader at OpenAI, who after resigning from his position two weeks ago wrote that “the future depends on the wisdom that Silicon Valley lacks.” Joining him are tech industry leaders like Bill Gates, who recently warned that “AI is certainly powerful enough to drive events that cause a billion deaths.” This camp argues for greater government oversight over AI, and for AI companies to proceed more cautiously. On the other hand, you have people like President Donald Trump, who has called demands for AI regulation a “hoax.” He has led an equally loud chorus, which includes tech leaders like Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia, who argue that concerns about AI are overblown and disingenuous, that AI leaders like Sam Altman and Dario Amodei are eager for regulation so that they can box out competition, and that pumping the brakes on AI amounts to government meddling in the free market. Ross Douthat. Abigail Shrier. Douglas Murray. Niall Ferguson. Coleman Hughes. Caitlin Flanagan. Nellie Bowles. Arthur Brooks. Kat Rosenfield. Tyler Cowen. The voices you trust, all in one place. For a limited time only, subscribe for 20% off The Free Press. Both sides are operating under an inadequate framework. Recently, on Meet the Press, Gates said, “There’s never been a weapon as powerful as the combination of people with ill intent using the latest AI tools.” He’s right, and that’s why the structures we use to govern a private industry, or even a public utility, don’t fit when it comes to AI. Rather, the appropriate structure is how we govern violence in a society, and those governance structures have been developed over millennia. Understanding their evolution might save us from a future of violence and chaos that looks much like humanity’s past. | 0.35 |
Source leans by Media Bias/Fact Check.
Narrow further
Other keywords in the matching articles: the share of them that mention each, with the number of articles.
No other keyword appears in more than one of the matching articles.
Coverage by source
The share of each source's stories in the last 7 days that match the query, from left to right. Sort the table to reorder the bars.
Source lean:leftcenterright
Source leans by Media Bias/Fact Check.
| The Free Press | 3.1% | 1 | 32 |
Coverage by lean
The share of stories that match the query, in the last 7 days, averaged over the outlets of each political lean with at least 3 stories. The groups differ in size, so a single outlet weighs more in the smaller ones.
- Left-leaning0 of 15 sources
- 0.0%
- Least biased0 of 8 sources
- 0.0%
- Right-leaning1 of 15 sources
- 0.2%
Lean index +4.1: covered more by right-leaning outlets
Each outlet at its MBFC bias score, from −10 (far left) to +10 (far right), as high as the share of its stories that match the query. The lean index is the average score of the outlets covering it, weighted by that share.
lean indexour sources' average (+0.4)leftcenterright
Bias scores by Media Bias/Fact Check.
Source leans based on ratings by Media Bias/Fact Check.