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
Filter the conversation Who is saying what?

Combine a professional role with a reaction lens. Both must match the same attributed contribution.

Clear all
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.

0 live reaction maps in this view

No development in this filter has enough independent reactions yet. The maps appear as soon as the evidence supports them.

Showing signals surfaced by thebes ×

The developments commanding sustained expert attention

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

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

4 experts · 6 posts · 19d ago
Multiple readings Concern & critique · 1 Research & technical analysis · 1
Mark Riedl: Paper says a valid test must: a model should not be able to pass the test using cues in the input alone. This directly addresses a beef i have with the Anthropic introspection work: the introspecti…
Mark Riedl: Timely paper.
Open the thread →