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.

2,364 searchable experts 2,966 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 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.

Research & technical analysis
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.

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.

No developments match these filters yet.

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

Clear filters
Debates gaining attention

What experts are discussing without an anchoring article

4 experts · 8 posts · 1d ago
Eugene Vinitsky Juan Diego Rodriguez Christian Wolf jake
Matches Research & technical analysis
“Everyone who knows how to use a computer is now saying “well, why shouldn’t I use AI to write a paper and send it to a conference? Worst case it’s rejected.” The wave is coming.” evidence ↗
Shared emphasis Research & technical analysis · 2
Eugene Vinitsky: Everyone who knows how to use a computer is now saying “well, why shouldn’t I use AI to write a paper and send it to a conference? Worst case it’s rejected.” The wave is coming.
Eugene Vinitsky: And they’re right! It’s all upside to them with no downside. Personally I think anonymity is going to have to go.
Open the thread →