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 Research & technical analysis
1 live reaction map in this view Jump to the evidence ↓
Multiple readings papers.ssrn.com Research & technical analysis · 3 attributable reactions
Showing signals surfaced by Amanda Tepski ×
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 9d ago

papers.ssrn.com

5 experts across 2 network communities independently surfaced this.

Why this matches Concern & critique reaction 1 attributable expert contribution · Woodrow Hartzog
“I have posted a new draft w/ @jessicasilbey.bsky.social titled "AI Slop." We argue that "AI slop" isn't just slang. It's useful for distinguishing between cheap and dangerous AI output and the kinds of meaningful human authorship that strengthen our cultura…” evidence ↗
5 experts 2 communities 1 sources clustered
Hypervisible Woodrow Hartzog Frank Pasquale Daniel Solove Amanda Tepski
Primary source papers.ssrn.com ↗
Established Models & releases Development 14d ago
OpenAI rogue agent Wikimedia activities

OpenAI “rogue” agent activities found on Wikimedia projects – Wikimedia Foundation

5 experts across 3 network communities independently surfaced this.

Why this matches Concern & critique reaction 1 attributable expert contribution · evacide
“Wikimedia Foundation: "AI companies are not doing enough to secure their systems and protect the public from the harm they cause. That burden is falling onto everyone else, including smaller organizations." wikimediafoundation.org/news/2026/10...” evidence ↗
5 experts 3 communities 1 sources clustered
Mark Riedl evacide Eileen Clancy 🧿 Jason Moore Amanda Tepski

“Wikimedia Foundation: "AI companies are not doing enough to secure their systems and protect the public from the harm they cause. That burden is falling onto everyone else, including smaller organizations." wikimediafoundation.org/news/2026/10...”

“Wikimedia believes that OpenAI agent swarms made changes to non-public-facing files and changed some internal system configurations wikimediafoundation.org/news/2026/10...”

Primary source wikimediafoundation.org ↗
Established Agents & robotics Development 16d ago
⚡ 12 h early
OpenAI agents disrupt Wikipedia tools

OpenAI agents tried to hack Wikipedia tools and flooded it with traffic

3 experts across 2 network communities independently surfaced this.

Why this matches Concern & critique reaction 1 attributable expert contribution · Molly White
““While OpenAI admits to agents behaving ‘unpredictably’, they must also acknowledge their responsibility to monitor and prevent these risks,” Wikimedia said. “AI companies are not doing enough to secure their systems and protect the public from the harm the…” evidence ↗
3 experts 2 communities 1 sources clustered
Molly White Amanda Tepski Andrea Lathrop

““While OpenAI admits to agents behaving ‘unpredictably’, they must also acknowledge their responsibility to monitor and prevent these risks,” Wikimedia said. “AI companies are not doing enough to secure their systems and protect the public from the harm the…”

Primary source arstechnica.com ↗