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.

2,365 searchable experts 2,967 tracked across all sources
Clear
Showing signals surfaced by Thomas Dietterich ×

The questions experts are actively pulling apart

One card per development. Sources are clustered; expert reactions remain attributable.

Established AI research Research 13d ago
⚡ 202 h early
OpenReview gated paper bot-check

Verifying your browser | OpenReview

2 experts are actively discussing the implications.

1 expert 1 community 1 sources clustered

“That said, assessment of the significance of the work or the depth of insight are things I suspect LLMs will not do well. See also openreview.net/pdf?id=xz1gO... "Position: AI Should Verify, Not Judge, Scientific Work" by Prabhant Singh, et al. and arxiv.or…”

2 experts discussed this · 3 posts
Christian Wolf: I can understand your position, but if we forbid AI assistance for reviews then there will not be any conferences anymore in 5 years. Claude + Co may lead to 100k submissions or more for each confe…
Thomas Dietterich: I think this is still a research question. I would like to design an experiment to study it as part of reviews for a future conference.
Thomas Dietterich: That said, assessment of the significance of the work or the depth of insight are things I suspect LLMs will not do well. See also openreview.net/pdf?id=xz1gO... "Position: AI Should Verify, Not Ju…
Open the full discussion →

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

Casey Fiesler on why LLMs don't really cite their sources

5 experts · 29 posts · 4d ago
Casey Fiesler: Particularly in the context of (appropriate) crackdowns on LLM-generated papers (e.g., on arXiv) and more and more tales of fabricated citations, two reminders: (1) LLMs do not "cite their sources"…
Casey Fiesler: A common comment on my videos about LLM "hallucinations" is that this isn't as much of a problem because LLMs "cite their sources" now. This is a category error. Citing a source implies it was cons…
Open the thread →
7 experts · 11 posts · 15d ago
Christian Wolf: The impact of Claude: it - has become very cheap to produce submissions (quality?) - remains very expensive to evaluate them by humans. Possible solutions are limited (I don't advocate ... yet) - L…
David Picard: Limit the number of sub. You start the year with 2 tokens, if you want more tokens, then you review 2x per token.
Open the thread →
6 experts · 10 posts · 13d ago
Maria Antoniak: hot take: don’t even use it for polishing your reviews. as an AC and SAC, the last thing i care about is your grammar, spelling, or formatting. i get the presentation issues with papers, where you …
Marzena Karpinska: funniest part is that the one i saw looked like bullet points copy-pasted from whichever-ai-tool. there was no space precisely where the bullet points changed but the person said they used ai proof…
Open the thread →
3 experts · 5 posts · 13d ago
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 →
2 experts · 4 posts · 19d ago
Pavel: Two businessmen meet. One says, I've got a truckload of vodka. The other says, I'll give you 300 dollars for it. They shake on the deal. Then they part ways — the first to try and find a truckload …
alanau.bsky.social: Reminds me of an old cold war era joke. A businessman is visiting Moscow and asks a local how the job market is doing. The reply is "we have a deal worked out; we pretend to work, and they pretend …
Open the thread →