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.

2,397 searchable experts 4,280 tracked across all sources
Build my stream Create my edition
Filter the conversation Who is saying what?

Combine a professional role with a reaction lens. Both must match the same attributed contribution.

Clear all
New Network reaction maps

See how experts are reacting—not just what they shared.

Posts are grouped by conversation and tone. Select a lens to filter the stream; these are never permanent labels on people.

0 live reaction maps in this view

No development in this filter has enough independent reactions yet. The maps appear as soon as the evidence supports them.

Showing signals surfaced by Christian Wolf ×
New & accelerating

What is moving across the network now

One card per development. Sources are clustered; reaction bundles describe these posts, never the people behind them.

Developing AI field signal Signal 1d ago
⚡ 9 h early

Dino Forcing Flow Models: Do not denoise what you can predict

2 directory members surfaced this signal.

2 experts 2 communities 1 sources clustered
Christian Wolf David Picard

“🚨 New preprint: "Dino Forcing Flow Models: Do not denoise what you can predict" @arrijitghosh.bsky.social @lucasdegeorge.bsky.social P. Couairon, A.A. Efros, @vickykalogeiton.bsky.social and me 📜 arxiv.org/abs/2610.11751 🖥️ arijit-hub.github.io/projects/din…”

Primary source arxiv.org ↗
Debates gaining attention

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

2 experts · 5 posts · 5d ago
Clément Canonne Christian Wolf
Shared emphasis Research & technical analysis · 2
Christian Wolf: Karma does exist. Reviewing AI slop papers is our punishment for having invented this technology. Please kill me.
Christian Wolf: What is the current nettiquette? As a reviewer, can I claim that the paper has been written with too much LLM output?
Open the thread →