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
Active evidence filter

Showing developments with attributable Concern & critique 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
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 Maria Antoniak ×
New & accelerating

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
Debates gaining attention

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

2 experts · 5 posts · 6d ago
Maria Antoniak Laura K. Nelson
Matches Concern & critique
“Maybe both. These studies are great and important. We need to better understand default behavior. And I also think the standard bias frame is so limiting in that it doesn't take seriously the inter…” evidence ↗
Laura K. Nelson: "RAG improves technical quality, in particular factual accuracy, and prompt engineering steers social representation as requested." I've seen enough similar results, I'm ready to take a stand: We c…
Maria Antoniak: Both? But agreed that it’s frustrating to see people often reporting on unrealistic or non-expert usages alone. It devalues the capabilities of the actual humans engaging in these tasks.
Open the thread →