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
Active evidence filter

Showing developments with attributable Research & technical analysis reactions.

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.

Research & technical analysis
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 Emily M. Bender ×
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 AI field signal Signal 14d ago
⚡ 1225 h early

faculty.washington.edu

5 experts are actively discussing the implications.

Why this matches Research & technical analysis reaction 1 attributable expert contribution · Emily M. Bender
“Perhaps this paper, especially the section on "AI" as an ideology, and the other works cited, might be helpful: faculty.washington.edu/ebender/pape... >>” evidence ↗
2 experts 2 communities 1 sources clustered
Emily M. Bender tante

“Perhaps this paper, especially the section on "AI" as an ideology, and the other works cited, might be helpful: faculty.washington.edu/ebender/pape... >>”

5 experts discussed this · 41 posts
Emily M. Bender: This sign is a great example for helping to explain why chatbots present such a potent illusion. A probably not short thread 🧵>>
Emily M. Bender: A point I frequently make when talking about chatbots is that their output only seems to make sense because we are making sense of it. And worse, we can only do that sense-making by projecting a mi…
Emily M. Bender: While you might think that understanding something someone wrote is simply a matter of unpacking the meaning (or message) they packed into the words, in fact what we do is much cooler and more invo…
Open the full discussion →
Primary source faculty.washington.edu ↗
More conversations

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

4 experts · 9 posts · 7d ago
Emily M. Bender Olivia Guest Anthony Moser Robin Z
Matches Research & technical analysis
“and it's important to remember (especially for talking with people who aren't interested in the tech) *you don't need to deeply evaluate or disprove the claims of a con man* you just need to spot t…” evidence ↗
Anthony Moser: *this is funny actually because professor harold hill says you don't need to practice your instrument to get good, you can "use the think method" which is not terribly dissimilar to the pitch made …
Anthony Moser: and it's important to remember (especially for talking with people who aren't interested in the tech) *you don't need to deeply evaluate or disprove the claims of a con man* you just need to spot t…
Open the thread →
2 experts · 7 posts · 6d ago
Emily M. Bender Colin
Matches Research & technical analysis
“Do you consider modern LLMs that have had reinforcement learning or other post-training techniques applied to be the same kind of thing as what you discussed in the Stochastic Paper & elsewhere, wh…” evidence ↗
Emily M. Bender: I don't actually follow Stancil, but I do follow the phrase "stochastic parrots" and that seems to be a pretty reliable way to get notified when he's on here flaunting his ignorance (about "AI" spe…
Emily M. Bender: Or maybe not -- I guess I don't have any sense of recall, just precision. Perhaps he flaunts his ignorance on this topic even more frequently and I don't see all of it.
Open the thread →