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
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 Riccardo Fusaroli ×

The developments commanding sustained expert attention

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

Established AI field signal Signal 11d ago

Claudio Paolucci, Nati cyborg - Luca Sossella editore, Scienza dei calcolatori

1 directory member surfaced this signal.

1 expert 1 community 1 sources clustered

“So much this. My MSc supervisor wrote a short book on how these models are the perfect embodiment of Peirce’s semiosis and eco’s encyclopedia. Not his best work, but quite a few good points lucasossellaeditore.it/libro/nati-c...”

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

3 experts · 3 posts · 11d ago
Richard McElreath 🐈‍⬛: "In a just world, every article about GPT-4 would nod toward Barthes and Foucault." Downing spoonfuls of mayonnaise as I read Ted's essay, because it is too spicy (link in quote below)
Ted Underwood: "In a just world, every article about GPT-4 would nod toward Barthes and Foucault." Downing spoonfuls of mayonnaise as I read Ted's essay, because it is too spicy (link in quote below)
Open the thread →