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 Questions & unknowns 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 Questions & unknowns
1 live reaction map in this view Jump to the evidence ↓
Multiple readings Is AI ruining our skills? Early results are in — and they’re not good Concern & critique · 3 attributable reactions
Showing signals surfaced by Stephen Turner ×
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.

Established AI field signal Development 3d ago
⚡ 47 h early
AI skill degradation early results study

Is AI ruining our skills? Early results are in — and they’re not good

13 experts across 4 network communities independently surfaced this.

Why this matches Questions & unknowns reaction 1 attributable expert contribution · Iris van Rooij
“What a surprise ….. “Is AI ruining our skills? Early results are in — and they’re not good Reliance on artificial-intelligence tools degrades the abilities of physicians and software engineers, studies show.” www.nature.com/articles/d41...” evidence ↗
13 experts 4 communities 1 sources clustered
Alondra Nelson Iris van Rooij Olivia Guest Djamé 🟥 Scott McGrath Marielza Sasha Costanza-Chock Eileen Clancy 🧿 +5
How the network is reacting Experts are approaching this through 2 distinct lenses.
Multiple readings

Concern & critique

2 experts

Risks, limits and unintended consequences.

“I find the research increasingly compelling — this week's example being a case in point: www.nature.com/articles/d41... I look forward to reading your book and having these concerns placed in the context of earlier technological transitions and their attend…”

Questions & unknowns

1 expert

What remains unresolved or contested.

“What a surprise ….. “Is AI ruining our skills? Early results are in — and they’re not good Reliance on artificial-intelligence tools degrades the abilities of physicians and software engineers, studies show.” www.nature.com/articles/d41...”

2 experts discussed this · 6 posts
Edouard Machery: The literature on cognitive offloading and deskilling should be taken with a serious grain of salt. See literature on video games in the 1980s, see Haidt style literature on social media. The last …
Alondra Nelson: I find the research increasingly compelling — this week's example being a case in point: www.nature.com/articles/d41... I look forward to reading your book and having these concerns placed in the c…
Edouard Machery: The issue, in my opinion, is publication bias and p-hacking. The literature is clearly titled toward finding negative effects - this is what gets in the news etc. As a result I don’t think we can t…
Open the full discussion →
Primary source nature.com ↗
Established AI field signal Analysis 5d ago
⚡ 7 h early
AI detection tools accuracy review

AI-detection tools have made huge leaps forward — how good are they?

4 experts across 4 network communities independently surfaced this.

Why this matches Questions & unknowns reaction 1 attributable expert contribution · Scott McGrath
“AI detectors now claim 99% accuracy. However, we still are struggling with AI norms, what degree of AI assistance is OK, or is it ever OK? We still haven't settled what degree should be deemed acceptable (a hard line 0%, <50%, higher?) and in what context (…” evidence ↗
4 experts 4 communities 1 sources clustered
Will Oremus Scott McGrath sorelle Stephen Turner

“AI detectors now claim 99% accuracy. However, we still are struggling with AI norms, what degree of AI assistance is OK, or is it ever OK? We still haven't settled what degree should be deemed acceptable (a hard line 0%, <50%, higher?) and in what context (…”

“For anyone interested in a less juicy (zero burps) but more evidence-based assessment of Pangram's workings and accuracy, I highly recommend this @nature.com piece by @miryamnaddaf.bsky.social & @richvn.bsky.social: www.nature.com/articles/d41...”

Primary source nature.com ↗