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

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

1 live reaction map in this view Jump to the evidence ↓

Showing signals surfaced by MIT Sloan ×

New & accelerating

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

New AI field signal Development 10h ago

⚡ 393 h early

272 experts survey urgent AI risks

2 directory members surfaced this signal.

Why this matches Concern & critique reaction 2 attributable expert contributions · Hypervisible , MIT Sloan

““Researchers asked 272 experts to evaluate 24 AI risks based on their likelihood and severity of harm between 2025 and 2030.”” evidence ↗

2 experts 1 community 1 sources clustered

Hypervisible MIT Sloan

How the network is reacting 2 experts are emphasizing concern & critique.

Shared emphasis

2 experts

Risks, limits and unintended consequences.

““Researchers asked 272 experts to evaluate 24 AI risks based on their likelihood and severity of harm between 2025 and 2030.””

Hypervisible post ↗

Primary source mitsloan.mit.edu ↗