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.

Who is contributing? How are they reacting?

Topic Search developments Clear all

Active evidence filter

Showing developments with attributable Concern & critique reactions.

Concern & critique

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 Lisa Messeri ×

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 10d ago

⚡ 8 h early

science.org

13 experts across 4 network communities independently surfaced this.

Why this matches Concern & critique reaction 2 attributable expert contributions · Dan Goodman, Social Media Lab

“Everyone is praising this article, but I find it a bit disingenuous. He criticises Taylorism ("scientific management") but that's exactly what researchers are subject to, and the glam publication economy is at the heart of it. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...” 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

How the network is reacting Experts are approaching this through 3 distinct lenses.

Multiple readings

Concern & critique

2 experts

Risks, limits and unintended consequences.

“Everyone is praising this article, but I find it a bit disingenuous. He criticises Taylorism ("scientific management") but that's exactly what researchers are subject to, and the glam publication economy is at the heart of it. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...”

Dan Goodman post ↗

Research & technical analysis

1 expert

Evidence, methods and technical implications.

“@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…”

Claes de Vreese post ↗

Opportunity & adoption

1 expert

New capabilities, benefits and practical upside.

“It’s amazing seeing @holdenthorp.bsky.social say the obvious part clearly. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...”

Joe Bak-Coleman post ↗

Primary source science.org ↗

Debates gaining attention

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

4 experts · 6 posts · 18d ago

Thomas Dietterich Lisa Messeri Lionel Jed Brown

Matches Concern & critique

“Yup! My co-author (a leading psych researchers) and I have spent the past two years mounting this methods critique to cog scientists, speaking at major conference (on panels with some of these auth…” evidence ↗

Multiple readings Concern & critique · 2 Research & technical analysis · 1

Jed Brown: Social scientists can often predict the result of studies in advance. Does that mean we shouldn't conduct the studies? Just ask an anointed expert? This paper doesn't examine construct validity, wh…

Lionel: This is quite the finding for a device thats just a plagiarism machine, or whatever we are calling it this week. www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Open the thread →