Show HN: I built a tool to track what AI leaders say and how their views change
blumify.io
blumify.io
Okay, you've convinced me I don't want to track what these guys are saying.
On a serious note, it looks good. Although to really track what they say, you'd probably want text too, e.g tweets and blog posts.
What are people actually doing with Muse?
Zuckerberg's Muse sources obscure teas weekly from farms in Taiwan and Japan. Wang's favorite use is MMA coaching: cameras in his gym let Muse watch his sparring"
[1] https://blumify.io/t/youtube/XfdIhd1g6EI/muse-wonder-zuckerb...
Palantir CTO:Some AI researchers taking up smoking;they expect AI to cure cancer
I remember reading about Switzerland’s government service that tracks each politician, their political actions - which positions they take, which laws they promote, etc. and comparing that with which companies and investments they, their famalies and their close connections have.
All quantifiable data. I always thought something like this was _essential_ for any democracy in general - follow the money and “qui bono” and all that, thought it would be cool to build one. But of course prohibitively expensive for individuals small teams. But with all the ai - this could definitely be a thing.
If it all boils down to “verifiable corruption rating” as a single sound bite, it could seriously affect public opinion I feel. Hope someone gets on that idea someday.
For pretty long time I was thinking about making the application which shows AI leaders predictions vs. reality.
Like "We will have AGI in ..." or "There will be no SWE jobs in..." as I feel really bad when some of these "visionaries" influence decisions of young people planning their future, normal people decisions (and markets obviously).
Another chapter would be fact/reality check for statements like "We don't hire SWEs anymore..." while having 100s of opened positions on their job portal.
Anyway, great app!
You can even just plug in the Youtube link with a short prompt.
Bear in mind that thinking that plugging in the transcripts will help the Gemini model in any way frequently results in mistranscriptions being included and actually compromises the diarizations.
The prompt I use is...
"Please transcribe, diarize, and speaker identify the speakers from the Youtube video."
Another thing I've learned is that long-worded prompts also interfere with the results in weird ways.
Selective ommission and reduction of context would allow any narrative you chose to write.
In other words for this to work you really need to cover enought scope that it would be surprising to find a public statement that was not covered here.
That's quite a lot of work, but anything else would be susceptible to cherry picking.
Misquoting people always has been a strategy. I see how this page could be used to further follow that path. But the root of the problem is the billionaire owned media. Their interests and the interest of citizens run one against the other. Lying to the public brings more power to billionaires, so their media empires always lie.
We need independent non-billionaire owned media: - https://www.404media.co - https://defector.com - https://aftermath.site
Not lying per se, but not really making claims supported by the preponderance of the evidence either.
What you said is a tautology. No news outlet contains all the news in the world. I just prefer that my news come from journalists and not billionaire propagandists.
I don't really care where the information comes from if it is accurate, and is not selected to support a particular conclusion.
If the outlet interprets the facts to tell you what conclusion to draw, they have left journalism and entered the world of commentary. Fox is the classic example of this.
It is quite egregious to put your interpretation of what the facts mean into the headline like
"Character.ai's Bankruptcy Documents Show the Economics of AI Don't Work" In fact the headline doesn't even hint at what the documents say, they jump straight to the claim of what they mean.
If the documents showed that their expenses per user were high enough that no amount of customers would have helped, that would be a claim of fact. They could report that. If the structure of their expenses and revenue was replicated across the industry, showing that as well might be sufficient for readers to draw the conclusion from the headline.
Really, the language used in that article is nailing their colours to the mast to declare themselves as taking a position and deliberately presenting everything to support it.
It is a little ironic that there are outlets concerned about AI removing our ability to think for ourselves. At the same time they like to publish works doing all the thinking for you.
For instance if you go to Marc Andreessen's page, at the top there are 2 quotes which are basically the same THEN/NOW with one quote from JRECentral and one from PowerfulJRE.
I also wanted to create a small web tool to watch those people put the term "superintelligence" in their twitters. But then I have realized that almost all of them did bend over, so there is little sense now.
Cool idea, I guess, but its just more slop to track the slop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTNN0gvkLM
Very funny, btw. "Can we please stop anthropomorphising the LLMs? They hate that."
Money and politics should never mix. One man, one vote. Not one dollar, one vote. One E.M. just tossed a few hundred million on the table in order to influence the outcome of an election and nobody did anything about it. That should tell you enough.
It'd be fun if so many people weren't being hurt in the process. A part of me can empathize with the folks who are so disillusioned that they're willing to let the country burn, but we're all still in here...
Oh, apropos Elon Musk:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1x5k...
Without a monopoly on violence they are not as powerful as you think they are.
You may think you want this because of Sinema and Fetterman but...we already know they're shitheads because...they blatantly do shithead stuff. Replacing the time spent gleaning all the nuance behind a vote with a party whip algorithm is not going to somehow make voters better at voting.
It's not obvious at first, but this idea is actually pretty terrible: changing your mind in presence of evidence is something we want politicians to do, but if you then use that to paint them as hypocrites then they'll never ever change any stated position. And "the opposite" casts a wide net: if someone is recorded as saying "I think we should stop building datacenters for AI" and you then contrast them with an old clip saying they use Google Translate, what does that tell us about the character of this person? (IMO nothing, but that's not what the clip wants to tells you)
I've been building a tool that turns YouTube videos and podcasts into searchable transcripts. But somewhere along the way, I became more interested in a different problem.
How do you keep track of what influential people actually say, and how their thinking changes over time?
Take Sam Altman, for example.
In October 2025, talking about compute, he said, "there will come a glut for sure."
In June 2026, he said, "there will be a shortage forever."
Two statements, eight months apart. There may be perfectly reasonable context behind both, but I found it interesting that there wasn't an easy way to see them together, with the original recordings.
It currently follows 20 people in AI, including Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, Alex Karp and Marc Andreessen.
Every day, it looks for new interviews, podcasts and talks where these people are actually speaking, rather than videos of other people talking about them.
For each appearance, you get a short summary, key quotes and links to the exact moments in the original recording.
The feature I'm most excited about is *"What changed".*
It compares what someone says today with their earlier statements on the same topic. You can see both quotes, their dates and the original sources.
I'm not trying to catch people contradicting themselves. People should change their minds when new evidence emerges. I just think it would be useful to have a record of how their thinking evolves.
Building it has been more challenging than I expected.
A surprising number of videos with someone's name in the title don't actually feature them speaking. Reuploads are everywhere. And getting AI to reliably attribute statements to the right person is harder than simply generating a transcript.
I've built filters to handle much of this, and every published "What changed" comparison is still manually reviewed.
It's far from perfect. Speaker identification needs work, some podcasts aren't transcribed automatically, and I'm starting with English only.
On the economics side, a transcript and summary currently cost roughly one US cent in model processing. That makes tracking a fairly large history surprisingly affordable.
Everything is free to read. You can also follow up to three people, receive updates when they speak, and ask questions like "What has Dario Amodei said about open-source AI recently?" with answers linked to the original recordings.
I'm still figuring out which part is genuinely valuable: keeping up with people, searching their past statements, or spotting changes in their views.
I'd love some feedback from HN.
Who else should I track? Would you actually use the "What changed" feature? And if you find something incorrectly attributed or summarised, please report it. I'd rather find the failures early.