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
Clear
Showing signals surfaced by Dr J. Rosenbaum ×

The questions experts are actively pulling apart

One card per development. Sources are clustered; expert reactions remain attributable.

Established AI field signal Analysis 5d ago
⚡ 6 h early
essay how to talk AI

How to talk about

9 experts across 2 network communities independently surfaced this.

9 experts 2 communities 1 sources clustered

“For ideas on how to do that, see: buttondown.com/maiht3k/arch... /fin”

“Instead of railing against the latest “I asked Claude” article in a mainstream publication, I’ll just post this.”

2 experts discussed this · 16 posts
Emily M. Bender: So many conversations where otherwise serious people throw around the term "AI" without defining it, despite it being notoriously ill-defined. Thinking about why this might be >>
Emily M. Bender: In some cases, no doubt, the speaker fully believes that autonomous thinking machines are among us. (Though I said "otherwise serious people" in the prev post, so.) >>
Emily M. Bender: In other cases, I suspect that people feel like they lack the expertise to call bullshit and are repeating what they hear others say. >>
Open the full discussion →

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

3 experts · 3 posts · 12d ago
Eryk Salvaggio: Two studies I’d be curious about, if anyone has leads: 1) what are the hallucination rates in the latest gen of “agentic” LLMs? 2) how often are they reproducing text (not just biases / form, but c…
Mél Hogan / The Data Fix: Two studies I’d be curious about, if anyone has leads: 1) what are the hallucination rates in the latest gen of “agentic” LLMs? 2) how often are they reproducing text (not just biases / form, but c…
Open the thread →