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 sorelle ×
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.

Established AI field signal Analysis 3d ago
⚡ 7 h early
AI detection tools accuracy review

AI-detection tools have made huge leaps forward — how good are they?

4 experts across 4 network communities independently surfaced this.

4 experts 4 communities 1 sources clustered
Will Oremus Scott McGrath sorelle Stephen Turner

“For anyone interested in a less juicy (zero burps) but more evidence-based assessment of Pangram's workings and accuracy, I highly recommend this @nature.com piece by @miryamnaddaf.bsky.social & @richvn.bsky.social: www.nature.com/articles/d41...”

“AI detectors now claim 99% accuracy. However, we still are struggling with AI norms, what degree of AI assistance is OK, or is it ever OK? We still haven't settled what degree should be deemed acceptable (a hard line 0%, <50%, higher?) and in what context (…”

Primary source nature.com ↗