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 James MacGlashan ×
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 6d ago

arxiv.org

4 experts are actively discussing the implications.

1 expert 1 community 1 sources clustered
James MacGlashan

“For example, his group developed SIGReg which legitimately looks like a good method. arxiv.org/pdf/2511.08544 I wouldn't say "abandon contrastive learning" but this item is the least objectionable of the lot to me :p”

4 experts discussed this · 9 posts
Chris Paxton: Come on, really
David Picard: He did raise a lot of money by presenting these slides over and over again. That's a good incentive not to stop.
David Picard: I would not call it embarrassing. It's over-the-top, but everybody understands that it's a stunt while still having an agenda behind. Over-claimed, yes, definitely. Someone posting pictures of hims…
Open the full discussion →
Primary source arxiv.org ↗
More conversations

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

3 experts · 8 posts · 2d ago
Mark Riedl James MacGlashan B! 🐝 Cavello (they/them)
Multiple readings Concern & critique · 1 Research & technical analysis · 1
Mark Riedl: We all laughed at Nadella for defining AGI as a percentage of annual growth in GDP. Lately I’ve come to think this might be a reasonable frame. Show me some hard numbers.
Mark Riedl: What I don’t like about that frame is that it reduces the notion of intelligence, and perhaps human value, to the work that gets produced. That’s bleak.
Open the thread →