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

2 experts · 8 posts · 1d ago
Matches Research & technical analysis
“Engaging with a colleague, with whom you mostly communicate via email, becomes a chore when they only ever share pure slop. I'd rather fill out paperwork than actually spend gray matter and time on…” evidence ↗
Shared emphasis Research & technical analysis · 2
Berna Devezer: Totally vibing here, but hope we'll soon get collectively fed up with llm-speak and refuse to entertain it. Getting impossible to seriously engage with extensive text without an underlying thought …
Berna Devezer: Engaging with a colleague, with whom you mostly communicate via email, becomes a chore when they only ever share pure slop. I'd rather fill out paperwork than actually spend gray matter and time on…
Open the thread →