Gavin Baker engagement report
@GavinSBaker - 357K followers on X
Measured over 9 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 8, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 1.3K interactions against 357K followers, an engagement rate of 0.368%. Measured over 9 original posts, its engagement rate beats 89% of 20,444 tracked accounts of a similar size. Comparing inside a size band matters here: engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly just re-measure the follower count. Posts are seen about 163K times each, and 0.792% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 45.7% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 0.7 post a day over the last 30 days, though only 40% of days saw any activity at all. Most posts go out around 16:00 UTC, and Sunday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 9 posts sampled, 33% carry an image or video and 44% are part of a thread. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 8.2K interactions, about 6.3x its own typical post.
Measured over 9 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 8, 2026.
Compared with accounts its own size
Gavin Baker's engagement rate beats 89% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 10 of 10)). A percentile is spread evenly by construction, so 50 really is the middle of that group and 90 really is its top tenth.
On engagement per impression rather than per follower it beats 41% of the same group. When those two numbers disagree, the gap is about how far its posts travel rather than how people react to them.
Where this sits in the catalog
At 0.368%, Gavin Baker sits above the 50th percentile of the 204,956 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the above the median band, which runs 0.143% to 0.678%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.004% |
| 25th percentile | 0.024% |
| 50th percentile | 0.143% |
| 75th percentile | 0.678% |
| 90th percentile | 2.55% |
| 99th percentile | 82.4% |
This ruler is the whole measured catalog, not a size-matched group: it shows where the raw rate falls across every account we can measure, all of which are large. For a like-for-like comparison, read the size-band percentile above instead. See how the bands are built
Posting timing
This account posts most often around 16:00 UTC, and Sunday is its busiest day of the week. The bars below are the catalog-wide pattern, with this account's own busiest slot marked. They do not show how this account performs at each hour: we keep one aggregate per account, not one per hour, so that measurement does not exist in our data.
Show engagement by hour posted, utc as a table
| Hour (UTC) | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00 UTC | -1% | 89K |
| 01:00 UTC | -2% | 90K |
| 02:00 UTC | -3% | 88K |
| 03:00 UTC | -4% | 94K |
| 04:00 UTC | -5% | 76K |
| 05:00 UTC | -4% | 75K |
| 06:00 UTC | -5% | 86K |
| 07:00 UTC | -5% | 93K |
| 08:00 UTC | -4% | 108K |
| 09:00 UTC | -4% | 124K |
| 10:00 UTC | -3% | 129K |
| 11:00 UTC | -3% | 141K |
| 12:00 UTC | -3% | 154K |
| 13:00 UTC | -3% | 167K |
| 14:00 UTC | -4% | 173K |
| 15:00 UTC | -2% | 176K |
| 16:00 UTC | -3% | 171K |
| 17:00 UTC | -3% | 159K |
| 18:00 UTC | -2% | 149K |
| 19:00 UTC | -2% | 141K |
| 20:00 UTC | -1% | 131K |
| 21:00 UTC | 0% | 116K |
| 22:00 UTC | -2% | 100K |
| 23:00 UTC | -1% | 90K |
Show engagement by day of week as a table
| Day | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| Sunday | +5% | 393K |
| Monday | +1% | 483K |
| Tuesday | -2% | 520K |
| Wednesday | -3% | 472K |
| Thursday | -2% | 430K |
| Friday | -3% | 447K |
| Saturday | +2% | 393K |
Formats this account uses
Its own posting mix on the left, and what each of those formats does across every account we track on the right. Only formats where the effect clears our publish test appear here, so an empty row is a format we could not measure rather than one that does nothing.
| Format | This account | Catalog effect | 95% interval | Accounts behind it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image or video | 33% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 0% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 33% of this account's sampled posts carry an image or video. Across the catalog, posts with an image or video run 111% above the same accounts' other posts.
- 0% of its posts carry a link off X. Across the catalog, posts with an outbound link run 41% below the same accounts' other posts.
- Its average post runs 731 characters, which falls in the over 280 characters band. Across the catalog, posts over 280 characters run 15% above the same accounts' other posts.
These are catalog-wide differences applied to this account's own posting mix, not a measurement of how each format performs for this account specifically. We keep one median per account, not one per format per account, so the second thing is not something this data can tell you.
Best tweets
- Aug 12, 20266.3x their median
Grok 4.6 is roughly the same performance as Fable 5 Max at an 85% discount. 80% cheaper for input tokens and 88% cheaper for output tokens. Pareto dominant. Grok 4.7 will be significantly better as is a much larger model with the Cursor and SpaceX data included in pretraining. https://t.co/4e8CXbzs2D
- Sep 13, 20266.2x their median
Wild 24 hours for AI and lots of different proposals have been made. TLDR; the only *tangible* new fact is that OpenAI and Anthropic are going to have embedded 3rd party evaluators from unknown organizations with Dario floating METR as a possibility. Having 3rd party evaluators is smart as there is no Section 230 style liability shield for model outputs and showing a “duty of care” will be important in future litigation. Several internet companies might have gone bankrupt without Section 230 so limiting liability really matters. There are minimal investment implications from this single new fact, but I do think that for anyone who wants a “smoother for longer” cycle then most constraints are good: wafers, watts, real rates and spreads. Excessive regulation is a different matter but I don’t think we are anywhere close to this even if the vector changed over the last 24 hours. To summarize the events: Dario made the most maximalist proposal of the weekend: embedded 3rd party evaluators, a national regulatory regime for models beyond a certain capability/ingredient threshold, a broad international regulatory pact between democracies, stricter limits on compute/distillation for China and then a different international regulatory regime that encompasses China. Before there is a national regulatory regime, he wants a Sherman act waiver so that Anthropic can safely coordinate with OpenAI and other frontier labs without antitrust fears. TBF, this latest proposal is much less maximalist than some of his prior proposals like “Policy on the AI Exponential,” where he advocated for an FAA for AI. I believe he is sincere in his beliefs. And despite all the protestations, all of this would also probably be good for his business over the long-term. Sam agreed that embedded 3rd party evaluators were a good idea and stated they would implement them. Again, this is smart as should help limit future liability. Elon said “Dario is right” and later specified that “Dario is right that there should be some oversight. Peer review of AI by competitors is the right way to start this off.” This would be a MPAA like self-regulatory structure for AI with regular calls between the labs plus a process where each new model is evaluated for safety by competitors for a 1-2 week period before being released. That is *wildly* different from Dario’s proposal and in-line with what David Sacks has been proposing. Elon also stated that nothing was going to slow down open-weight models. Demis said that Dario’s essay was a “step in the right direction.” Dario also said that he was also open to Demis’ idea of a FINRA like self-regulatory structure as part of his proposal. David Sacks had a thoughtful post where he said that Dario and Sam should pace unilaterally, called the antitrust waiver a cartel request and denied that METR was truly independent given their ties to Anthropic. Sriram Krishnan, former White House AI advisor, noted that it would be important to have the 3rd party evaluators come from independent organizations that are not affiliated with any lab, which is basically an indirect statement about the relationship between METR and Anthropic which Sacks was explicit about. Clem from Hugging Face said they were open to being a neutral 3rd party evaluator, which is interesting especially if Jensen was consulted before that post. Alexander Wang from Meta noted that alignment would be an increasing focus going forward. An executive order seems likely after all this and the language in this EO is going to be really important. It is possible to democratize and distribute AI broadly and safely without centralizing it in the hands of a few corporations who might each become more powerful than any single government. I do not want a few humans in control of intelligence. I want us all to have our own intelligences that reflect our own values and human variation in all of its richness. Intelligence distribution over intelligence centralization FTW.
- Aug 29, 20262.7x their median
Nature is healing. Any politician opposed to data centers is unqualified to hold public office. Data centers are revitalizing small towns all over America, a godsend for blue collar workers, lowering electricity costs, accelerating the transition to sustainable energy and use negligible amounts of water.
- Sep 14, 20262.5x their median
The way that Anthropic and OpenAI are going to “pace” the frontier is by spending more time and more *compute* on alignment, monitoring and evals. The frontier labs that choose to “pace” likely spend slightly more money on compute at the cost of lower margins. That’s it.
- Sep 1, 20262.5x their median
Releasing Fable 5.1 before Astra is quite a flex. Makes me think Fable 5.2 is ready to go. So much gamesmanship between Anthropic and OpenAI right now. And I am very much looking forward to the next version of Grok. Exciting times.
- Aug 21, 20262.4x their median
Interesting disclosure from Ken Griffin via @CNBC that they have shed 80% of the SALP portfolio. Super high confidence that this was $45b levered more than 4 to 1 so at least $180b gross. Unwinding that $180b would absolutely have had an impact. Have felt it in the market.
- Sep 13, 20262.4x their median
Love it that Meta is giving their AR glasses to every blind veteran in America for free. The industry needs to do more of this. Also a great ad!
- Sep 11, 20262.4x their median
High confidence prediction: all these Anthropic people come back after 6 months. I think they are sincere in their beliefs, but their actions are very calculated and coordinated with a specific goal in mind: regulation. Better for 🇺🇸 for AI to be distributed and democratized.
- Aug 23, 20261.7x their median
Every accelerator company, and I mean every accelerator company, is likely going to do some variant of 3D DRAM or the “zHBM” which were both discussed at HotChips today. The larger companies will probably run (are running) parallel programs, but these two memory variants probably co-exist for a long time. Each has distinct advantages.
- Aug 31, 20261.6x their median
OpenAI still taking share while Anthropic likely reaccelerating. And open source is growing even faster. https://t.co/CeXwcseNAH
Ranked by total interactions across everything we have tracked for this account, which is a longer history than the 30-day window the rates above use. The multiple compares each post to this account's own median.
Buy or sell Twitter (X) accounts - escrow-protected
PlayerSells is an escrow marketplace for Twitter (X) accounts. Every deal is protected, with no middleman risk.
Reading these numbers
A typical post picks up 1.3K interactions against 357K followers, an engagement rate of 0.368%. Measured over 9 original posts, its engagement rate beats 89% of 20,444 tracked accounts of a similar size. Comparing inside a size band matters here: engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly just re-measure the follower count. Posts are seen about 163K times each, and 0.792% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 45.7% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 0.7 post a day over the last 30 days, though only 40% of days saw any activity at all. Most posts go out around 16:00 UTC, and Sunday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 9 posts sampled, 33% carry an image or video and 44% are part of a thread. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 8.2K interactions, about 6.3x its own typical post.
- What is Gavin Baker's engagement rate on X?
- Gavin Baker (@GavinSBaker) has an engagement rate of 0.368%, based on the median interactions across 9 original posts from the last 30 days against 357,192 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.368%, Gavin Baker sits above the 50th percentile of the 204,956 accounts in this comparison. Those comparison accounts are all large ones, because our scanning cadence is weighted towards big accounts, so this is a ranking among peers of similar scale rather than a ranking across X.
- Does @GavinSBaker have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 89% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts), which puts it in the top quarter for its size group. Ranking inside a size band matters because engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly re-measure the follower count. It is a starting point for a look at follower quality, not a verdict on it.
- When does @GavinSBaker post?
- Most posts go out around 16:00 UTC, and Sunday is its busiest day, at roughly 0.7 posts per day across the measured window.