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.

2,364 searchable experts 2,966 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.

Concern & critique Opportunity & adoption Research & technical analysis
1 live reaction map in this view Jump to the evidence ↓
Multiple readings science.org Concern & critique · 4 attributable reactions
Showing signals surfaced by Mar Hicks ×
Most important

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 12d ago
⚡ 8 h early

science.org

13 experts across 4 network communities independently surfaced this.

Why this matches Research & technical analysis reaction 1 attributable expert contribution · Claes de Vreese
“@science.org warns against AI slop in research: “authentic research and validated findings will slow down to an expensive trickle into established knowledge, and the opportunities for flawed or fabricated information to be seen as reality will grow” www.sci…” evidence ↗
13 experts 4 communities 1 sources clustered
Emily M. Bender Mar Hicks Iris van Rooij Olivia Guest M.J. Crockett Claes de Vreese Joe Bak-Coleman Lisa Messeri +5
Primary source science.org ↗
Established AI field signal Development 10d ago
⚡ 2 h early
AI spam floods LinkedIn X platforms

LinkedIn and X Are Flooded With AI Spam, Browsing Data Suggests

5 experts across 2 network communities independently surfaced this.

Why this matches Research & technical analysis reaction 1 attributable expert contribution · Jason Koebler
“As much as 40 percent of longform posts on LinkedIn and X that users actually see are fully AI-generated, according to new research Particularly notable because we know these platforms are flooded with slop, but this studied what the algorithm actually show…” evidence ↗
5 experts 2 communities 1 sources clustered
Mar Hicks Meredith Broussard 404 Media Jason Koebler VE, cybersocial occult investigator

“As much as 40 percent of longform posts on LinkedIn and X that users actually see are fully AI-generated, according to new research Particularly notable because we know these platforms are flooded with slop, but this studied what the algorithm actually show…”

““This isn’t something that had really been studied before—how much AI content people are actually seeing,” Max Spero, the CEO of Pangram, told me in a phone interview. “AI content is a tax on readers’ time.” Read now: www.404media.co/linkedin-and...”

2 experts discussed this · 3 posts
Jason Koebler: As much as 40 percent of longform posts on LinkedIn and X that users actually see are fully AI-generated, according to new research Particularly notable because we know these platforms are flooded …
Meredith Broussard: As much as 40 percent of longform posts on LinkedIn and X that users actually see are fully AI-generated, according to new research Particularly notable because we know these platforms are flooded …
Jason Koebler: As LinkedIn says it's trying to change this, I scroll two seconds and get an AI-generated advertisement by a LinkedIn exec promoting AI. Good stuff
Open the full discussion →
Primary source 404media.co ↗