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.

Context & explanation Questions & unknowns Research & technical analysis
1 live reaction map in this view Jump to the evidence ↓
Multiple readings GitHub - openai/math Research & technical analysis · 3 attributable reactions
Showing signals surfaced by Dashiell ×
Debated

The questions experts are actively pulling apart

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

Established Models & releases Development 16d ago
⚡ 3 h early
OpenAI angers mathematicians again

GitHub - openai/math

11 experts across 5 network communities independently surfaced this.

11 experts 5 communities 1 sources clustered
Mark Riedl Ted Underwood Kyle Cranmer Tim Kellogg Gilles Louppe Dashiell Alejandra Caraballo Samuel Vaiter +3
How the network is reacting Experts are approaching this through 3 distinct lenses.
Multiple readings

Research & technical analysis

1 expert

Evidence, methods and technical implications.

“Link: github.com/openai/math P.S.1: This reminds me of the Chinese room argument, though only indirectly. P.S.2: I imagine a few people at OpenAI have looked at the results. Also maybe some other people have looked at some papers since ~1h ago. These are o(…”

Questions & unknowns

1 expert

What remains unresolved or contested.

“OpenAI is working on at least 722 (so far) math manuscripts, all on GitHub in various stages of verificantion github.com/openai/math Why? I guess because they can?”

Context & explanation

1 expert

Background, chronology and why it matters.

“Oh my god, OpenAI just made the single largest advancement in mathematics and number theory in modern history. They released a quasi reimann hypothesis. This is just one of 722 proofs and advancements they released all at once. github.com/openai/math”

3 experts discussed this · 27 posts
Dashiell: I don't think there's a world where mathematicians aren't pissed about this. 1. Dumping everything is what the advisory group said 2. Just yesterday people were mad that Ant paid two experts to dig…
Naomi Saphra: I think (2) is actually good. It is weird, and makes mathematicians into some kind of benchmark evaluation annotator which they don’t like, but it’s just a hard time to be a mathematician. Destroyi…
Naomi Saphra: One big consequence here is you can’t use the duration of an open problem as a sign of difficulty/importance. But at least right now, there’s no way to develop interesting open problems through RLV…
Open the full discussion →
Primary source github.com ↗
Established Policy & governance Resource 14d ago
AGMAI September 29 general content

general-sep29

5 experts across 4 network communities independently surfaced this.

5 experts 4 communities 1 sources clustered
Ted Underwood Alondra Nelson Dashiell Liz Fong-Jones (方禮真) tweety fish

“It's possible I'm wrong, and they didn't actually closely follow the advice given by that board (AGMAI). Depends on how well we think they did on part 2B here.”

“I think the recommendations are the only thing that has been published agmai.org/general-sep29/”

4 experts discussed this · 47 posts
SE Gyges: i would like everyone complaining to state what they would have preferred to have happened here.
SE Gyges: why? and, like, i guess they could but i assume they tried basically all of them
SE Gyges: i'mma keep it real with you i don't remember who i was quote posting and did not intend it as a dunk on them, i am simply displeased with the discourse overall
Open the full discussion →
Primary source agmai.org ↗
More conversations

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

2 experts · 17 posts · 14d ago
Dashiell Shubhendu Trivedi
Multiple readings Research & technical analysis · 1 Questions & unknowns · 1
Dashiell: This is just saying that the English proof does not directly map to the Lean proof, not that the Lean proof is wrong. Let's please be normal about this
Shubhendu Trivedi: Yeah, it's mostly fine from what I hear. But the point is that no one at OpenAI understands the results itself to get formalization itself right. In the slop dump this is now a common theme (not ta…
Open the thread →
2 experts · 3 posts · 18d ago
Dashiell Luis Villa
Multiple readings Concern & critique · 1 Building & implementation · 1
Luis Villa: Many of the core AI developers agree with this completely! But it tends to also correlate with other beliefs that boil down to “it won’t matter because once they get that smart they’ll enslave (or …
Dashiell: Writing and thinking about this absolutely exists, but for the most part only in small sub-communities. The closest thing to a public discussion has been from Amanda Askell and the very light "mode…
Open the thread →