Expert attention map

The Who's Who of AI

What credible people across AI noticed, why it matters, and where the field is converging or disagreeing.

2,364 searchable experts 2,966 tracked across all sources
Clear
Showing signals surfaced by Alex Gude ×
Most important

The developments commanding sustained expert attention

One card per development. Sources are clustered; expert reactions remain attributable.

Established Models & releases Signal 3d ago
⚡ 70 h early

cdn.openai.com

4 experts across 3 network communities independently surfaced this.

4 experts 3 communities 1 sources clustered
Ramon Astudillo Tim Kellogg Pwnallthethings Alex Gude

“Is cool that the released the multi-agent prompt for Sol 5.6 Ultra's proof of the Cycle Double Colver Conjecture. A lot of focus on diversity and keeping the agents trying, some adversarial review. Otherwise, not really that structured of a workflow! cdn.op…”

“here’s one: cdn.openai.com/pdf/04d1d1e4...”

Primary source cdn.openai.com ↗
Debates gaining attention

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

4 experts · 6 posts · 5d ago
Tim Kellogg Arseny Khakhalin Alex Gude Adverb
Alex Gude : logged into Mastodon for the first time in a long while it’s a lot of software developers egging each other on into career self-harm, I don’t know how else to say it if your career is symbol proces…
Arseny Khakhalin: One has to have a _really_ body affirming and sexuality positive set of base level opinions in their head to read this thread well haha 😅 I think I can guess what the op means, but that's not a nat…
Open the thread →
3 experts · 4 posts · 8d ago
Naomi Saphra Jonathan Cheng Alex Gude
Naomi Saphra: if you think students will be routinely collaborating with LLMs after graduation, #1 priority is to study rhetoric because you need to recognize BS and critique the rigor of an argument that *looks…
Jonathan Cheng: if you think students will be routinely collaborating with LLMs after graduation, #1 priority is to study rhetoric because you need to recognize BS and critique the rigor of an argument that *looks…
Open the thread →