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
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.

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 Hypervisible ×

What is moving across the network now

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

No developments match these filters yet.

Try the field-wide view or clear one of the filters.

Clear filters

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

4 experts · 15 posts · 6d ago
Matches Research & technical analysis
“They never do the reading. Honestly many of them never even read the SP paper because they routinely misinterpret it.” evidence ↗
Multiple readings Concern & critique · 1 Building & implementation · 1 Research & technical analysis · 1
VE, cybersocial occult investigator: One of my long-standing complaints with the pro-AI world is how their complaint that anti-AI people and the left "need better critics" is clearly a reflection of themselves not having read the actu…
VE, cybersocial occult investigator: It's way easier to shadowbox with a guy you made up in your head than to do the reading and engage with it honestly, but you do you.
Open the thread →