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 ×
Most important

The developments commanding sustained expert attention

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
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 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 →
Primary source openreview.net ↗
Established Evaluation & benchmarks Research 14d ago
⚡ 4 h early
FLAWS scientific paper error benchmark

FLAWS: A Benchmark for Error Identification and Localization in Scientific Papers

1 directory member surfaced this signal.

1 expert 1 community 1 sources clustered
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 Judge, Scientific Work" by Prabhant Singh, et al. and arxiv.or…”

Primary source arxiv.org ↗
Debates gaining attention

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
Thomas Dietterich Casey Fiesler Luke Stark Eileen Clancy 🧿 Prof. Catherine Flick D. Hicks
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
Thomas Dietterich Jacob Eisenstein Christian Wolf Alexander Hoyle David Picard Eric Brachmann Kabir Kumar, aiplans.org
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 Thomas Dietterich Marzena Karpinska Christian Wolf Marco Z Arseny Khakhalin
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 →