AI news. Every side accounted for.
Every big AI story gets the Split: what Pro-AI, Anti-AI, and Middle Ground voices actually said about it, quoted and linked. No spin, no take from us. Just who said what.
Most AI coverage picks a side and hands you the quotes that agree with it. That leaves you with half the argument and none of the context. The more useful product is the disagreement itself: the strongest version of each position, attributed to the person who said it, next to the others. You decide which one holds up.
The labels describe the take, not the person. Pro-AI: this is progress, build it, lean in. Anti-AI: this is dangerous, moving too fast, or costs people more than it gives. Middle Ground: cautiously optimistic, nuanced, or wait-and-see. A separate skeptic flag marks reactions that dismiss a story as overblown, whichever camp they sit in.
Billionaire Bill Ackman calls Anthropic “perhaps the greatest business story I've ever seen”Yahoo Finance
the amount of money being made from selling AI may not be enough to cover the amount of money it takes to keep developing the next version of AI if the cost/pace of development doesn't slow downMicah
Theoretically the product can pay for itself, but not if people stop using it too early.Aprotim
One number for the mood.
The Doom/Boom Index runs 0 to 100. It reads every story of the day and every reaction to it, then tells you which way the conversation is leaning. Doom is low. Boom is high.
Every story carries a score of its own, judged on what happened, and every published reaction pulls that score toward its camp. Pro-AI pushes toward 100, Anti-AI toward 0, Middle Ground holds at 50. The Index is the weighted average across the day's stories, so stories with more coverage and more reaction count for more. Yesterday's number is frozen at midnight UTC so you can see the trend.
Your take moves the number.
Sign in, pick your camp, post a take on any story. Reader takes count toward the score, so the Index isn't just what the loud accounts think. It's what you think too.
Votes are one per reader per story and can be changed any time. Takes are filed under the camp you voted, 500 characters, plain text. Other readers can like a take, and the most liked ones rotate on the homepage and at the top of each camp's column.
Where the quotes come from.
We do not write news. An automated pipeline reads public RSS feeds from a fixed list of outlets and lab blogs, groups duplicate coverage of one event into one story, and writes a short neutral summary limited to facts the sources agree on. Every article we grouped is linked under the story.
Reactions come from five places, every one attributed and linked to the original post:
- The watchlist: accounts whose takes we always pull, whatever their reach.
- Hacker News: the best comments on threads about the story.
- Bluesky: public posts that mention the story.
- Reddit: top comments from r/artificial, r/singularity and r/technology.
- YouTube: the Splitfeed channel, where the day's Split gets talked through.
Software proposes a camp for each reaction and a human reviews it before it is published. We do not edit quotes beyond trimming for length, we do not paraphrase, and if a camp has nothing to say about a story we say so rather than fill the gap. We do not scrape article text, we do not invent quotes, and we do not sell your data. See the privacy policy. Corrections go to hello@splitfeed.ai and are handled ahead of everything else.