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
Active evidence filter

Showing developments with attributable Research & technical analysis 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.

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.

The questions experts are actively pulling apart

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

No developments match these filters yet.

Try the field-wide view or clear one of the filters.

Clear filters

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

5 experts · 26 posts · 2d ago
Matches Research & technical analysis
“And I don't think even current computer architectures (or models that get close to them) agree on linear time. Maybe quasilinear time is more robust?” evidence ↗
Multiple readings Questions & unknowns · 2 Concern & critique · 1 Research & technical analysis · 1
Clément Canonne: Of all the possibles takes on the claimed refutation of the Exponential Time Hypothesis, "it isn't a practical algorithm" is maybe the worst.
Clément Canonne: Just to be clear: there are many valid criticisms to make! But the fact that "the constant in the O(.) is big" is absurd. What's next, "most of maths is useless because real numbers don't actually …
Open the thread →